Alromeo Brown v Transport Authority and Others

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Campbell, J
• Judgment Date: 15 November 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] JMSC CIV 169
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. 2009HCV 05446
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 15 November 2013

[2013] JMSC CIV. 169

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. 2009HCV 05446

Between

Alromeo Brown

Claimant

and

Transport Authority

1st Defendant

and

S/Constable K. Gordon

2nd Defendant

and

The Attorney General of Jamaica

3rd Defendant

Detinue — Measure of Damages — Market value at the time of seizure —The Attorney General & Anor v Aston Burey— Loss of use — Loss of trade goods.

Campbell, J

1 The Claimant was on the 7 ^th July 2008, arrested in Portmore, for operating his motor vehicle without the requisite road licence. His motor vehicle a 1992 Toyota Camry registered 6469EN was seized and irnpounded at the Lakes Pen Pound. On The 6 ^th April, 2009 the Court dismissed the charges and instructed that the vehicle be released.

2 The Claimant attended on the 1 ^st Defendant and demanded the release of his motor vehicle and was told it was sold. He filed a claim on the 13 ^th April 2012, seeking damages for;

(a) Loss of his motor vehicle	$2,200,000.00
(b) Loss of trade goods	$100,000.00
(c) Loss of use of the said motor vehicle	$1,339,000.00 (and continuing)

3 The gist of the cause of action in detinue is the wrongful detention of the chattel, and in order to establish that, it is necessary to prove a demand for the return of the property detained and the refusal after a reasonable time to comply with such demand. The demand must be unconditional and specific. The Claimant applied for summary judgment, at a Pre-Trial Review, Mr. Justice King, ordered summary judgment against the 1 ^st Defendant for detinue and a date was fixed for the hearing of assessment of damages.

4 The Claimant submitted that in detinue the measure of damages is the market value at the date of judgment and that the correct measure of damages is by reference to what it would cost at the time of trial to import to the island a similar make and model vehicle which the Claimant lost as a result of 1 ^st Defendant actions.

5 It was submitted that inThe Attorney General & Anor v Aston Burey SCCA No.109/2010 , on which the Claimant relied, a 1994 bus was seized in June 2006, the vehicle was then 12 years old. The claim for return of the bus was made in 2008. The Attorney General had argued that the sum to be recovered is limited to the actual value of the bus, at the time it was sold by the defendant. The Court awarded the value of a five year old vehicle. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The Court of Appeal took the view that it was correct to award the Claimant the value of a five year old vehicle. Counsel submitted that the court took the view that the Respondent should not be prejudiced by the wrongful action of the appellant.

6 Mr. Campbell argued that there was no evidence, to support the claim of $2. 2 Million in respect of the value of the vehicle, nor the sum claimed for loss of use. He argued thatAston Burey, the vehicle was a public passenger vehicle and the court had the evidence of two expert witnesses to demonstrate the difficulty in locating a similar bus because of the then applicable motor vehicle import policy. Counsel complained of the absence of evidence as to the cost incurred in the provision of alternate transportation and insurance cost, which would be required to be set-off against cost of the alternative transport. He said there was no explanation for the escalation in cost of the Claimant's trade tools to $206,500.00 from the sum of $100,000.00, which was claimed at the time the claim was filed.

Analysis

7 InAston Burey, The Claimant had sought ‘loss and damage sustained by the seizure and sale of his bus.’ The bus was 12 years old at the date of judgment. The Court of Appeal upheld Jones J orders, which awarded the Claimant the market value of a five year old bus at the date of trial. Harris JA, held that in detinue the measure of damages is the value of the goods at the date of trial. Her Ladyship relied on Rosenthal v Aldrton & Sons Ltd. (1946) KB 374 (1946) KB 374, and held at paragraph 10 of her judgment, inter alia:

‘Where the chattel is not ordered to be returned, the ordinary measure of damages is the value of the goods as well as the loss arising by reason of the detention of the goods.’

8 Harris JA, judgment recognized a clear distinction between the market value of the bus as claimed in default of its release and damages awarded whether or not it is returned. The Court disagreed with Counsel for the Crown, that the value of the bus which was sold ought not to be assessed at a greater value than that as at the date of its sale by the defendant, as the respondents remedy is in conversion, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's award in detinue as the value of the bus as of the date of judgment.

9 In Rosenthal v Alderton & Sons Limited on which the Court of Appeal relied, the plaintiff had carried on the business of a hairdresser, at the Defendants premises under the terms of a tenancy agreement that he surrendered. By agreement certain articles of...