Court of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1992
18th September, 1992
KENNETH ST. L. HENRY, P.
DR. NICHOLAS J. O. LIVERPOOL, J.A.
SIR LASCELLES ROBOTHAM, J.A.

Mr. Hubert Elrington for Applicant
Mr. Rodwell Williams for Respondent

Appeal against order of ajudge of the Supreme Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice - Unpaid judgment debt - Application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - Privy Council Appeals Act, CAP. 31, Laws of Belize, Revised Edition, 1980 - Application refused.

J U D G M E N T

On May 18, 1992 this court, for reasons set out in its written judgment, dismissed the Applicant's appeal against the order of a judge of the Supreme Court dismissing his application to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued in respect of an unpaid judgment debt of $328,437.60. The Applicant now applies for leave to appeal to the Privy Council pursuant to section 3 of the Privy Council Appeals Act, Cap. 81. That section provides as follows:

"3. Subject to this Act, an appeal shall lie -

(a) as of right from any final judgment of the Court, where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of one thousand five hundred dollars or upwards, or where the appeal involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the value of one thousand five hundred dollars or upwards;

(b) at the discretion of the Court from any other judgment of the Court whether final or interlocutory, if in the opinion of the Court the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision; and

(c) from a judgment of the Court on a question of law under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

In our view the judgment in respect of which leave to appeal is sought is not one of those described in section 3. The judgment debt of $328,437.60 is not disputed and we cannot see that the proposed appeal involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the value of $1,500.00 or upwards. Nor has it been shown that the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision. We therefore refuse the application.

The second application for a stay of execution pursuant to section 9 of the Act would only, strictly speaking, arise if leave to appeal were granted, but in any event we do not consider that it could succeed because the judgment in respect of which leave to appeal is sought was not one which required the Appellant either to pay money or to perform a duty.

No order for costs was made on the appeal and we make no order as to the costs of this application.

----------OO----------