Charmaine Taylor v Branch Development Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Morrison, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 July 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] JMSC Civ 40
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. 2010 HCV 04985
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 23 July 2013

[2013] JMSC Civ. 40

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. 2010 HCV 04985

Between

Charmaine Taylor

Claimant

and

Branch Development Limited

Defendant

Application for Court Orders for matter to be transferred to the Resident Magistrate Court — Claim for breach of employment contract — Damages for breach of contract — Damages for defamation — Whether reasonable grounds for bringing defamation claim — Whether claim is in excess of Jurisdiction of Resident Magistrate's Court — Jurisdiction — Civil Procedure Rules 64.6(1); 11.3(2); 65.15

Morrison, J.

1 By way of Notice of Application for Court Orders fixed on December 8, 2010 the Defendant/Applicant (Applicant) implores the Court to order that:

• a. The claim be transferred to the Resident Magistrate's Court, St. James.

• b. Alternatively, the Claimant's statement of case be struck out.

• c. In the further alternative, paragraph 9 of the Statement of Case be struck out for failure to disclose a reasonable ground for bringing a claim for defamation against the Defendant.

• d. Costs to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.

2 The grounds on which the Application is made are:

• a) the claim is for breach of an employment contract in circumstances where the maximum damages recoverable from the Defendant arising from the breach is less than $1,00,000.00 and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court pursuant to Section 17 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act as amended.

• b) The claim for special damages for breach of contract representing one year's loss of income in circumstances where the contract could lawfully have been terminated by either party giving two weeks notice is an abuse of the process of the court and/or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's Court.

• c) The Claimant cannot properly certify that the damages claimed exceed the civil jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court in accordance with Rule 8.10(1)(b).

• d) The Claimant has failed to plead the defamatory words that were uttered or published by the Defendant, its servants or agents against the Claimant.

Let me now train attention on the pleadings

The Pleadings

3 According to the Claim Form filed on October 8, 2010, the Claimant of Spot Valley District, Little River P.O. Rose Hall, St. James, ‘claims against the Defendant…. To recover damages for employment breach of contract in that on June 1, 2010 the Defendant purportedly laid off the Claimant from her job and in effect dismissed herwithout offering her reasonable notice, or reasonable notice to pay causing the Claimant to suffer loss, along with damages for defamation of character (sic).’

4 In particularizing the Claim the Claimant, rather pointedly and pertinently pleads at paragraph 6 that her dismissal was unreasonable having regard to her qualification, seniority and the difficulty of obtaining similar employment. At paragraph 7, continues the particulars of claim, ‘the Defendant's reason for terminating the Claimant's contract was that the Claimant was suspected of criminal conduct.’ Particulars of Defamation of character were supplied. They are in extensor:

• a) On June 2010, the Defendant informed the Claimant that she will be laid off due to their suspicion that the Claimant was involved in conduct which is defamatory of the Claimant;

• b) The conduct of the Defendant suggests by way of innuendo that the Claimant is a criminal;

• c) Effecting immediate dismissal in the presence of management and staff members …

Applicant's Submissions

5 The Applicant contends that the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court was increased to $1,000,000.00 for claims of breach of employment contract. The rationale for the increase in its monetary jurisdiction was designed to, first, shift more of the burden for dealing with such typical cases from the Supreme Court to the Resident Magistrate's Court; second, to ensure that the parties do not have to engage in unnecessary travel to another jurisdiction; third, to facilitate a speedier trial of the matter; fourth, to limit the attendant costs of the attorney-at-law to which the parties may be exposed. Viewed against that reasoned exposition then the matter ought to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Saint James.

6 Further, contends the Applicant, as the measure of damages for claim for breach of an employment is limited to the Defendant's minimum contractual obligation, that is to say, J$58,739.20, which is the maximum of the Claimant's/Respondent's entitlement inthe event that she succeeds in her claim, and, as the costs of pursuing this claim in the Supreme Court would surpass any award of damages under this head, then the matter ought to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Saint James.

7 Furthermore, the Applicant takes exception the claim for defamation of character on the basis that it is not susceptible of proof as it is presently pleaded. That being the case, the submission goes, then the forum and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is inexpedient.

In support of its submission, the Applicant pressed in aid the following list of authorities:

• a) Section 17 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act;

• b) Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract, 2 ^nd ed. (1994) by Andrew Burrows;

• c)Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd. And Anor. (2011) All E.R. (d) 395;

• d)Lindon Brown v Jamaica Flour Mills Ltd No. 2000/B199; S.C.C.A No. 2000/B199

Submissions By The Respondent

8 In deflecting the submissions of the Applicant the Respondent says, first, that as the Claimant's case is twofold, namely, a claim for breach of contract and a claim for defamation, and, as the claim for special damages on the breach of contract claim is over J$1.5million, then the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court is ousted.

9 Accordingly, the Supreme Court in determining whether the claim was within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court ought properly to have regard not only to the nature of the claim and the amount of the claim as pleaded, but to the relevant statute, that is the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act.

10 Second, that as the claim for defamation can be committed by conduct, then the claim ought to be made to go forward. This is pointedly the case as the particulars of claim clearly disclose a cause of action on the basis of which the Claimant is seeking to recover damages for defamation of character.

11 Third, as an award of damages for defamation is at large and which is likely to be in excess of the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court, then the matter should be allowed to proceed in the Supreme Court.

The Respondent hinged her reliance on the Civil Procedure Rules;Welch Thomas v Caribbean Aviation Training Center and Cpt. Errol Stewart, Resident Magistrate's Civil Appeal No. 09/08; Sebol Limited v Selective Homes Properties Limited and Ken Tomlinson, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 115/2007; Rodney Campbell v The Jamaica Observer Limited and Chester Francis-Jackson, Claim No. CL 202/C-238; Gatley on Libel and Slander, and the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act.

The Law

12 I wish to put into bold relief Section 67 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) which speaks to the monetary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Courts. It reads:

‘Notwithstanding any provision in any enactment limiting the Jurisdiction of

Resident Magistrate's Courts in relation to claims arising from contract, a Resident Magistrate's Court shall have...