Geraldine Wright v Steve Burton and Attorney General of Jamaica
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Anderson, K., J,Hon. K. Anderson, J. |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] JMSC Civ 237 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 2007 HCV 00028 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 23 October 2015 |
[2015] JMSC Civ. 237
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN THE CIVIL DIVISION
CLAIM NO. 2007 HCV 00028
and
BREACH OF CONTRACT — FALSE IMPRISONMENT — MALICIOUS PROSECUTION — CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION INSTITUTED AGAINST CIVILIAN COMPLAINANT
In this matter, the claimant has instituted a claim against the defendant, for damages for breach of contract. By virtue of that claim, she is seeking to recover general damages for breach of contract and special damages, in the sum of $743,589.91. This claim was filed on January 3, 2007.
The claimant has alleged that what has caused her to institute this claim, is that: By oral agreement entered into between them in about December, 2005, the parties agreed that the defendant would import into Jamaica, for the purpose of purchase by the claimant, for the purchase price of $1,100,000.00, a used Nissan X-Trail motor vehicle. At that time, the defendant was a businessman, who bought and sold, used cars.
The claimant has alleged that it was an oral agreement, but it was expressly agreed to, that after he had imported the said vehicle, the defendant would have had the said vehicle repaired and put in good condition, prior to the delivery of same to the claimant. Further, it was expressly agreed to, that the defendant would have delivered the said vehicle to the claimant, in good order and condition, in or about the middle of the month of February, 2015.
Pursuant to that agreement, the claimant paid to the defendant a deposit of US$8,000.00, at the applicable U.S. to Jamaican dollars exchange rate at that time which was $61.75, that having been in January, 2005. The claimant paid a further sum of J$400,000.00 in May, 2005, to the defendant.
The defendant did not deliver the vehicle to the claimant on September 24, 2005, and was therefore, according to the claimant, in breach of the agreement and in fact, only delivered the vehicle to the claimant, after the claimant had reported the non-delivery of same, to police personnel, who had thereafter, contacted the defendant.
Upon the vehicle having been delivered to the claimant, she paid over to the defendant, the balance of the purchase price for the vehicle, which was $206,000.00.
The defendant also breached the said agreement by failing to have the said motor vehicle repaired and/or put in good order and condition before delivery of same to the claimant and instead, delivered same to the claimant, with several defects and missing parts and overall, not in good condition.
As a consequence, the claimant incurred specific financial losses, associated with the cost of rectifying defects, replacing missing parts, renting a vehicle, loss on sale of car and cost of wrecker, to transport vehicle to Kingston. In respect of the aggregate sum of those specific financial losses, the claimant is claiming, from the defendant, for the sum of $743,589.91. The same has been claimed for as special damages in addition to which sum the claimant is claiming general damages for breach of contract, interest at the rate of 12% on the special damages sum, costs and such further and other relief as this court deems just.
In response to this claim, the defendant has filed a defence and counterclaim. In his defence, he has alleged a follows: During negotiations to purchase the Nissan X- Trail motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the vehicle”) the claimant was shown a picture of the said vehicle, which showed damage and the oral agreement between the parties, was that the claimant would purchase that motor vehicle from the defendant after the defendant had effected the required repairs to the visible damage.
The defendant contends that he told the claimant that the vehicle would be delivered in about 3–4 months' time, as is the typical delivery time for such vehicles, when ordered. The parties entered into their contractual agreement for the sale/ purchase of the vehicle, in or about December, 2005. Accordingly, it is the defendant's contention that the vehicle should have been delivered by or before the end of April, 2005 (3–4 months after December, 2005). The defendant asserts that the claimant waskept apprised of all developments as regards the importation and repair of the vehicle, which, due to circumstances beyond his control, was not delivered until sometime in July of 2005.
The defendant accepts that the claimant made the payments of US$8,000.00 at an exchange rate at that time, of $61.75 — that having been January, 2005 and a further J$400,000.00 in May 2005. The defendant though, has contended that said sum of J$400,000.00 was paid after the claimant had been informed by the defendant, that the vehicle had landed in Jamaica, on May 1, 2005. In having then made that payment, the claimant waived her right to consider the late delivery of the vehicle, as constituting repudiation or rescission of the said oral agreement/contract.
The vehicle was delivered to the claimant on September 10, 2005, after all the visible defects had been repaired and also, after some mechanical defects had been repaired. Those repairs were all carried out by his servants and/or agents and at his sole expense. If therefore, the vehicle was defective, when it was delivered to the claimant, the defendant makes no admission as to same and states that he took all steps to repair the damage to the vehicle which was found and known to him and as such, had no knowledge of there having been any such defects at the time when the vehicle was handed over to the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant had been provided by the defendant with a copy of the import entry after the vehicle had been imported into Jamaica and was advised when the vehicle was cleared at customs and delivered to a garage in Top Hill, in or about the end of May, 2005, in order for those repairs to have been effected.
In the circumstances, the defendant has denied that the claimant is entitled to any damages whatsoever and also, that the claimant has suffered any loss and/or damage as alleged, or that she is entitled to any interest on damages.
The defendant has filed a counterclaim against the claimant and the substratum of that counterclaim is based on the contractual agreement between the parties and their subsequent disagreement, based on same.
The defendant's counterclaim contends that on or about September 5, 2005 the claimant had wrongfully and with malice directed and procured a police officer to arrest the defendant and take him into custody on a charge of fraudulent conversion, based on the claimant's allegation, which was made to police personnel, that the defendant had fraudulently retained her money and refused to deliver the vehicle to the claimant, from his premises at Middle Street, Exchange, in the parish of St. Ann.
As a consequence of the claimant having, as has been alleged by the defendant, maliciously and wrongfully, directed and procured the defendant's arrest, a police officer arrested the defendant and as such, the defendant was kept in custody at the Ocho Rios Police Station between September 5 and 8, 2005, on which latter date, the defendant attended the St. Ann's Bay Resident Magistrate's Court and the criminal charge brought against him, was withdrawn. Accordingly, the defendant was wrongfully imprisoned and deprived of his liberty for three (3) days. The claimant acted out of spite and malice towards the defendant and caused the defendant to be arrested in broad daylight, in a public thoroughfare, whereafter, according to the defendant, the claimant and/or her friends and family, maliciously and unlawfully subjected the defendant to “a smear campaign,” in the parishes of St. Ann and St. Elizabeth and in particular, the small community of Ocho Rios in St. Ann, where the defendant lived and did business as a used car parts salesman — which was his only source of income. As a consequence, the defendant lost his used car parts business.
The aforementioned actions of the claimant caused the defendant severe shock and mental anguish and subjected the defendant to ridicule and contempt, in addition to humiliation and disgrace. As such, the defendant claims damages and aggravated damages.
The defendant is also pursuing a further amended ancillary claim against the claimant/1 st ancillary defendant and the 2 nd ancillary defendant and by means thereof, has sought indemnification from the claimant for any damages which may be awarded by this court, against the defendant/ancillary claimant, in respect of the claim for damages for breach of contract, which has been brought by the claimant/ 1 st ancillary defendant, against the defendant/ancillary claimant. In the alternative, the defendant has sought, by means of that further amended ancillary claim, to obtain through this court, as against the claimant/1 st ancillary defendant, such contribution as this court may deem appropriate, in respect of any damages which may be awarded to the claimant/ 1 st ancillary defendant, as against the defendant/ancillary claimant.
Additionally, by means of his further amended ancillary claim, the defendant/ ancillary claimant had, in that court document, which was filed on May 18, 2010, just as had been done by him, in the preceding document, that being his amended ancillary claim form, made it clear that he was seeking to recover from the 2 nd ancillary defendant, damages for false imprisonment, arising from the actions of a police officer, namely:...
To continue reading
Request your trial