Stewart v Minister of Home Affairs and Reid

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 09 April 2025
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)
• Docket Number: Civil Jurisdiction 2023 No 311

Between:

Timothy JC Stewart

Plaintiff

and

Minister of Home Affairs Debbie GN Reid (Land Title Registrar)

Defendants

[2025] Bda LR 39

Civil Jurisdiction 2023 No 311

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Application to strike out — Employment — Breach of contract — Misrepresentation — Unlawful discrimination — Place of origin

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

West Rand Co v R[1905] 2 KB 399

Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association[1970] 1 WLR 688

Hubbock v Wilkinson[1899] 1 QB 86

Tucker v O'Connor[2024] Bda LR 24

Plaintiff in person

Mr B Myrie for the Defendants

RULING ofMartin J

1. This is an application by the defendants to strike out the writ and statement of claim on the grounds that the pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and the claims are otherwise scandalous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court, pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (“RSC”) 1985.

Summary and disposition

2. For the reasons explained in this Ruling, the court granted the application at the end of the hearing and indicated that reasons for the decision would follow. These are those reasons.

Background

3. The plaintiff was employed by the Bermuda government in the capacity as Land Title Registration Officer (LTRO) between 2011 and 2021. He entered into 3 successive four—year contracts in 2011, 2014 and 2018. When his contract came up for renewal in 2022, the plaintiff refused to sign the contract on the terms offered on the basis that the terms offered were “insulting”.

4. Although the pleading is mostly a narrative history, the essence of the plaintiff's claim can be extracted from the text along the following lines. The plaintiff says that the job description for the post of LTLO and the allocation of the pay grade in relation to the post do not reflect the true seniority and responsibility of the position. He says that the LTRO position is the equivalent to the post of either senior crown counsel (or at least crown counsel), and the pay scale for the post ought to have reflected that level of seniority and responsibility. The plaintiff claims that he was underpaid for the period of his employment and claims arrears of his pay and other benefits (including pension contributions) for the period of his employment all the way back to 2011.

The plaintiff's claims

5. The plaintiff has articulated his claims under 3 headings. First, he claims that there was a breach of contract. Second, he claims that he has a claim in tort either in misrepresentation or a breach of duty. Third, he claims that he has been the victim of unlawful discrimination by reason of his place of origin under section 6 (1) (bb) of the Human Rights Act 1981 (as amended).

The pleadings

6. The statement of claim does not set out the facts on which any of these claims depend in a logical or comprehensible way. That the facts which relate to each limb of each claim are muddled. Nor is any explanation offered as to why the facts alleged amount to the cause of action referred to in the statement of claim. In order to make sense of the claims, the Court has had to unscramble the story told in the pleading (and two affidavits filed by the plaintiff, one in opposition to the strike out application, and one in support of an adjournment, which was refused.)

7. It is basic to the system of pleading required by the RSC that...