Cassandra Todd v Ivy Barrett
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | SIMMONS J (Ag.) |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2011 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2011] 1 JJC 2701 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 2008HCV01681 |
| Date | 27 January 2011 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
CIVIL DIVISION
CLAIM NO. 2008HCV01681
Miss Danielle Archer instructed by Kinghom & Kinghorn for the Claimant
Mr. Carlton Williams instructed by Williams, McKoy & Palmer for the Defendant
TRESSPASS TO LAND - Contract - Breach of contract - Damages
The claimant has filed an action in which she claims damages for trespass to property and or in the alternative damages for breach of contract.
The claimant alleges that in September 2006 she entered into a rental agreement with the defendant in respect of a room in the defendant's premises situated at 63 University Crescent. At the time she was in the third year of her studies at the University of Technology. She states that the defendant breached this agreement by locking her out of the said room for a period in excess of three (3) days and that this amounted to an interference with her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
She also claims that the defendant removed her personal property from the room in her absence. The claimant asserts that when she returned to the premises to collect her property she discovered that certain items were missing. They are as follows:-
Defence
| i. | Citizen watch | $5,800.00 |
| ii. | Gold ring | $2,800.00 |
| iii. | Gold chain | $4,800.00 |
| iv. | Diamond stud earrings | $22,770.00 |
| v. | Jeans pants | $1,500.00 |
| vi. | Shoes | $6,600.00 |
| vii. | Handbag | $4,290.00 |
| viii. | Flash drive | $6,500.00 |
| ix. | Pictures | $850.00 |
| x. | Soaps | $1,198.00 |
| xi. | Notebooks | $650.00 |
| xii. | Money- | J$16,900.99 |
| US$1,535.00 |
The defendant has denied that any rental agreement existed between herself and the claimant. She also denies that she prevented Miss Todd from entering the premises. She denies that the claimant suffered any loss as a result of her removing the claimant's property from the room that was occupied by the claimant.
Evidence
It is not disputed that the parties to this action met in September 2006. At that time the claimant was a student at the University of Technology in need of lodging and the defendant who resides in close proximity to the University was known to have provided rental accommodation for students. It is also agreed that the claimant was not provided with a key until the police intervened sometime after she moved into the premises. It is also not disputed that the defendant removed the claimant's property from the room that she had occupied and that this took place in her absence. The evidence of both parties also confirms that the claimant did not remove her personal effects from the premises until approximately two days after she was requested by the defendant to do so. It has also been admitted that the claimant pleaded guilty to breaching the Rent Restriction Act when she appeared before the Resident Magistrates Court and was admonished and discharged.
The claimant in her witness statement asserts that in September 2006 she rented a room in the defendant's home for the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) per month.
She further states that she was not provided with a key despite having made several requests of the defendant and had to depend on the defendant or someone else at the house to open the grill and the door. Miss Todd alleges that she was locked out of the premises more than once and sometimes had to wait on someone in the household to awaken to let her out in the mornings. This she said, resulted in her either being late or missing her first class on some occasions. This situation culminated in her being locked out of the premises in November 2006 for three (3) days. During that period she states that she had no change of clothes and had to sleep in a classroom on the campus of the University. She further states that she was only allowed to enter the premises with the assistance of the police. At that time she discovered that her clothing and other items had been removed from the room which she had occupied and placed in a passage. When she returned to collect her possessions she discovered that certain items were missing. She vacated the premises but did not seek accommodation in Kingston and instead traveled from St. Ann to the University each day until the end of her course in 2007.
The claimant also states that as a result of the state of affairs between herself and the defendant she made reports to the Rent Assessment Board and the Papine Police Station.
The defendant on the other hand paints a different picture. She states that when the claimant approached her with a view to renting accommodation she indicated that she did not have anything available. She further states that as a result of the claimant pleading with her she decided to allow the claimant to stay in a room in her house for one month. This arrangement was supposed to be temporary as she would have to share her kitchen and bathroom with the claimant and would need the space to accommodate family members who were coming from abroad. This was explained to the claimant who allegedly agreed with the arrangement.
The defendant further states that the claimant was not given a key because someone was always at home and the arrangement was only for one month. She explained that the claimant was only given a key after the intervention of the Rent Assessment Board and the police. That key, according to the defendant was never returned to her and the locks were changed after the claimant collected her possessions.
With respect to the eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) collected from the claimant, the defendant avers that this sum was a contribution to electricity, water and the use of the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen and not rent although the receipts (exhibits 2 and 3) refer to the sums paid as rent. The defendant made a note on the back of exhibit 3 as follows:
‘The first payment was made on the 15 th October, but was returned because of the fact that the tenant was asked to leave. One month was given to 12/11/2006 and as a result of advice from the police the rent was taken and the date for the tenant to leave the premises is now November 2nd 2006.’
There are two issues for determination in this matter. Firstly, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Secondly, whether the defendant committed a trespass in respect of the claimant's property.
Submissions
With respect to the first issue counsel for the claimant submitted that such a relationship did exist between the parties. In support of this argument, Miss Archer referred to a letter written by the defendant to the claimant in October 2006 (exhibit 1), in which she states ‘Your rental payment and date will be next week October 13 Friday’ . It was submitted that the defendant who was a former lecturer in English was not a lay person and would therefore understand the nature of a rental agreement. In addition, counsel argued that the defendant was experienced in letting premises to student tenants and as such would be accustomed to writing receipts. In this regard counsel referred to receipts dated the 15th September 2006 (exhibit 2) and the 24 th October 2006 (exhibit 3) in which the sum collected is described as rent.
Miss Archer also relied on the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty to a breach of section 27 of the Rent Restriction Act. That section makes it an offence for a landlord to forcibly remove a tenant from premises or to do anything ‘…calculated to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the premises by the tenant or to compel him to deliver up possession of the premises.’ She cited the case of Virgo v. Nam Claim No. 2008HCV00201 in which the claimant sued the defendant for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The defendant denied liability and the claimant applied for summary judgment. The claimant sought to adduce evidence that the defendant had pleaded guilty to careless driving. The court examined a number of authorities. The fact that the defendant had admitted fault at the scene of the accident and liability was accepted by his insurers was used to determine the weight that...
To continue reading
Request your trial