Byron L J Campbell v The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Judge: Michel, M
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1027-3
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2024/0303

Between:

Byron L.J. Campbell

Claimant

and

The Attorney General

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J1027-3

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2024/0303

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL DIVISION)

Appearances:

Mr. Ruggles Ferguson KC, with him, Ms. Mckaeda Augustine for the Claimant

Ms. Aleya Williams for the Defendant

DECISION

Michel, M

1 Before the Court is an application by the Defendant to set aside the default judgment entered for the Claimant for an amount to be decided by the Court on the Claimant's claim against the Defendant for breach of contract. The set aside application is strenuously opposed by the Claimant.

Background

2 The brief background to the matter is that on 1 ^st October 2017, the Claimant was contracted by the Government of Grenada (“GOG”), through the Ministry of Finance, to serve as Programme Manager for the Market Access and Rural Enterprise Programme (“MAREP”) for a period of one year (“the MAREP Contract”).

3 The MAREP contract defined the GOG as “the Client” and the Claimant as “the Consultant”. Clause 15 of the MAREP contract, titled “Termination” provided as follows:

“The Client may terminate this Contract, by not less than thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the Consultants, to be given if the Consultants do not remedy a failure in the performance of their obligations under the Contract, within thirty (30) days after being notified or within any further period as the Client may have subsequently approved in writing. Unsatisfactory performance (evaluated twice a year) is a cause for unilateral termination. The Consultant may terminate this Contract by no less than thirty (30) days written notice to the Client.”

4 The Claimant was subsequently appointed to the position of Head of Rural Development with responsibility for the Climate Smart Agriculture and Rural Enterprise Programme (“SAREP”), and the Basic Needs Trust Fund (“BNTF”) from 1 ^st October 2018 under a contract with the GOG (“the SAREP Contract”).

5 The appointment of the Claimant to the position of Head of Rural Development was by way of three letters. The first, was a letter dated 17 ^th May 2017 (which apparently ought to have been dated 17 ^th May 2018) from Patricia Clarke, Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Planning Economic Development and Physical Development. The letter stated that the Claimant would be guided by the terms and conditions of the MAREP contract. The letter further stated that the appointment letter would be used in the absence of a formal contract which would be issued pending the results of a job analysis process.

6 The Claimant received a further letter dated 24 ^th October 2018, from Mrs. Ophelia Wells-Cornwall, Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Planning, Economic Development and Physical Development. The letter stated that all contracts under MAREP concluded 30 ^th September 2018 and that the Ministry was in the process of reviewing and drafting new contracts for persons interested in being part of the new construct, Rural Development. The letter further asked the Claimant to indicate by Tuesday, 30 ^th October 2018, whether he would accept the position of Head of Rural Development along with its requisite responsibilities.

7 By letter dated 29 ^th October 2018 the Claimant responded to the Permanent Secretary indicating that he would accept the offer from the GOG to be the Head of Rural Development with its requisite responsibilities.

8 The Claimant thereafter received an amended appointment letter dated 27 ^th November 2019, signed on behalf of Ms. Patricia Clarke, Acting Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Planning, Economic Development and Physical Development, for the position Head of Rural Development. The amended appointment letter for Head of Rural Development stated that the Claimant would be guided by the terms and conditions of his previous contract as Programme Manager for the MAREP and would receive a monthly salary of $8,487.20 in addition to a travelling allowance of $600.00 and a telephone allowance of $200.00 effective as of 1 ^st October 2019. The amended appointment letter further stated that the Claimant's total package would be $9,287.20 per month. The amended appointment letter further informed the Claimant that the amended appointment letter would be used in the absence of a formal contract which would be issued pending the result of the job analysis process.

9 It is not in dispute that the Claimant never received the results of any job analysis process and never received a further formal contract.

10 By letter dated 23 ^rd February 2023, the Claimant's contract as Head of Rural Development was terminated by the GOG with effect from 28 ^th February 2023 on the basis that his services were no longer required. The Claimant's termination letter provided that in lieu of notice of termination, the Claimant would be paid two months' service fee for the months of March and April 2023 in the sum of $18,174.40.

11 The termination letter additionally advised the Claimant that, pursuant to Clause 8 of contract negotiated and agreed upon between Claimant and the GOG on 1 ^st October 2017, and re-confirmed by letter under the hand of the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Planning, Economic and Physical Development dated 27 ^th November 2019, if he was in possession of any reports, studies, or other material, graphic software or otherwise (whether originals or copies and whether on paper, computer memory or otherwise) relating to the business of and any other property belonging to the Government, he was kindly asked to return same to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry.

The Present Proceedings

12 The Claimant subsequently commenced the present proceedings against the Defendant pursuant to section 14(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1 by claim form and statement of claim filed on 18 ^th August 2023 for breach of contract by the GOG. The Claimant alleged in his claim that the GOG breached expressed and implied terms of his contract with the GOG by:

• (1) terminating his services in breach of the termination clause of the contract which governed his appointment;

• (2) terminating his services without addressing the GOG's outstanding obligation to provide a formal contract containing an upgraded salary and other benefits following the results of a job analysis project;

• (3) terminating the services of the Claimant without compensating the Claimant the outstanding monies due to him under the pending formalized Contract, which would be retroactive to 1 ^st October 2018 for the Claimant's four plus years of carrying out his duties as Head of Rural Development, in anticipation of the formalized and concluded SAREP contract.

13 The Claimant therefore claimed the following against the Defendant:

• (1) General damages for breach of contract.

• (2) An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant, the following sums:

  • (i) The sum of $159,000.00 for 53 months unpaid portion of the Claimant's salary ($3,000.00 x 53 months);

  • (ii) The sum of $6,000.00 for the unpaid portion of the two months payment in lieu of notice given to the Claimant ($3,000.00 x 2 months);

  • (iii) The sum of $11,487.20 representing payment in lieu of notice for a third month;

  • (iv) $2,400.00 representing the Claimant's travelling and telephone allowances up to the 3-month notice period; and

  • (v) Legal expenses.

• (3) In the alternative, an order directing payment to the Claimant on a quantum meruit basis provided for the period October 2018 to February 2023 inclusive.

14 The claim was duly served on the Defendant on 24 ^th August 2023. No acknowledgement of service or defence was filed by the Defendant within the time limited by the Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 (“ CPR 2023”). On 4 ^th December 2023, the Claimant filed a request for the entry of judgment in default of acknowledgement of service and defence against the Defendant. On 29 ^th August 2024, the Court Office uploaded the signed default judgment to the E-Litigation Portal.

15 On 15 ^th October 2024, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service and also filed the present application pursuant to CPR 13.3(1) to set aside the default judgment. The set-aside application was accompanied by a draft defence and was supported by the affidavit of Lisa Telesford, Senior Legal Counsel. An affidavit in response was filed by the Claimant on 14 ^th May 2025 and an affidavit of Lisa Telesford in reply was filed by the Defendant on 29 ^th May 2025. Both parties filed written submissions in relation to the Defendant's application.

Setting aside a Default Judgment under CPR 13.3

16 The Court has a discretionary power under CPR 13.3 to set aside a default judgment. The rule provides:

“13.3 (1) The court may set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 only if the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

(2) In determining whether to set aside under paragraph (1), the court may consider if the defendant –

(a) applied to the court as soon as reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment has been entered; and

(b) gives a good explanation for the failure to file an acknowledgement of service or a defence, as the case may be.

(3) In any event, the court may set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 if the defendant satisfies the court that there are exceptional circumstances.

(4) Where this rule gives the court power to set aside a judgment, the court may instead vary it.”

17 The rule makes it plain that the Court may only set aside a default judgment under CPR 13.3(1) if a defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Thus, the starting point to any application to set aside a default judgment pursuant to CPR 13.3(1) is to determine whether a defendant has met this threshold requirement for the court to exercise its discretion to set aside...