A HIGH COURT judge has dismissed the judicial-review application of a Carapichaima woman who claimed she was told to get a paternity test to prove she was her father’s daughter.
Mary Nandrani Harrylal-Hazel filed the action, through her attorney Richard Jaggasar, complaining of a breach of statutory duty by the registrar of the probate registry of the High Court. She claimed the registrar ordered her to obtain a paternity test to prove Harrylal Mahadeo, who died on May 13, 2003, was her father.
Her application said the decision was unreasonable, since Mahadeo died and was cremated 19 years ago, and has no living siblings.
“There is no conceivable way for the applicant to obtain a paternity order and therefore she cannot satisfy the query.
“The applicant is unable to identify a male relative to satisfy ‘the sibling test’ and, therefore, a paternity order cannot be obtained.”
But in ruling on the application, Justice Robin Mohammed said Harrylal-Hazel’s contention that the Status of Children Act required the submission of a blood test was “misconceived and a grave error” on her part.
In his ruling, Mohammed said it was hoped that this was a “teachable moment” as it related to understanding the legislation and the legal procedures required for obtaining a paternity order. It was for this reason he declined to make an order of wasted costs which would have led to Harrylal-Hazel’s attorney paying personally.
In his decision, Mohammed said the requirement for blood tests for proof of paternity was “applicable in certain proceedings, under certain circumstances and sanctioned at the discretion of the court.”
These, he said, applied to family law cases. He said paternity orders can be granted regardless of whether the alleged father was alive or dead, and declarations of paternity or paternity orders can be granted on the basis of affidavit evidence from anyone who was aware of the parent-child relationship of the applicant.
He also said the court had a duty to guard and protect the assets of a deceased person and the interest of legitimate beneficiaries by upholding due-diligence practices to avoid erroneous or fraudulent claims
“It is therefore incumbent upon the Judiciary and by extension the registrar of the Probate Registry to do the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that grants of representation are given to those so entitled after they have satisfied all the relevant requirements.”
Mohammed said Harrylal-Hazel’s claim had no realistic prospect of success.
In choosing not to order costs, the judge said it was evident from the response of the registry to the claim no distinction was made between a declaration of paternity and paternity order when Harrylal-Hazel was told what she should do when she applied for a grant of letters of administration for her father’s estate on February 1, 2022.
He said Harrylal-Hazel’s attorney could have reached out to the registry for clarification, which was not done, as Jagassar admitted he did not believe it was necessary or an appropriate use of his time.
“This court deeply frowns upon this misguided approach adopted by counsel,” the judge said.“The court warns against such an impetuous course of conduct by counsel which was only to the detriment of the applicant.”
Immediately after Harrylal-Hazel’s lawsuit was filed, the Judiciary, in a statement, provided guidance on the process of applying for the grant of letters of administration by the estate.
It said in estate matters, paternity can be proved in many ways, and a declaration from the court does not require a DNA or blood test.
Appearing for the registrar of the probate registry were Vandana Ramadhar, Murvani Ojah Maharaj and Anala Mohan.
