GS Trucking Ltd v Shipping Association of Jamaica Ltd and James Levy

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Campbell, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2009
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2009] 10 JJC 2704
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. HCV 2009/00557
• Date: 27 October 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. HCV 2009/00557

BETWEEN

GS TRUCKING LTD

CLAIMANT

AND

SHIPPING ASSOCIATION OF JAMAICA LIMITED

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

AND

JAMES LEVY

2 ^ND DEFENDANT

INJUNCTIONS - Access to premises - Order to restrain defendants from obstructing entrance preventing trucks of claimant from gaining access to premises of Kingston Wharves Ltd. - Whether claimant had a good and arguable case

Campbell, J

1 (1) The Claimant, a limited liability company, has been operating for the last three years on the premises of Kingston Wharves Ltd. as a hauling company. Prior to its incorporation, the managing director of the Claimant operated as a sole trader on those premises. The Claimant is a member of the Port Trailer Haulage Association, (PHTA) which promotes the interest of its members.

2 (2) The 1 ^st Defendant is a Registered Trade Union, incorporated under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. It is the representative organization of wharf and terminal operators, shipping lines, stevedoring contractors and operators on the ports of Jamaica and is responsible for providing several categories of labour on the port of Kingston. The 2 ^nd Defendant is an employee, and trucking verification officer of the 1 ^st Defendant. He had previously been associated with a haulage firm, Jamaica Freight and Shipping Company Limited.

Memorandum of Agreement

3 (3) On the 1 ^st February 2008, the 1 ^st Defendant and PHTA executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which established the 1 ^st Defendant as the central monitoring and verification body of trailer haulage on behalf of the shipping and trucking industry. The purpose was to regulate equipment interchange in order to protect equipment owned by shipping lines, truckers and equipment companies. The MOA was entered into to deal with the escalating problem of missing containers, chassis and other equipment of the shipping lines. An important feature to achieve the protection was the execution of the Standard Equipment Interchange Agreement by all SAJ and PHTA members. The MOA was revised on the 24 ^th October 2008.

4 (4) Among its terms, the MOA stipulates;

Only truckers who sign the shipping industry standard interchange agreement and who satisfy the insurance requirements under the Interchange Agreement and who meet the terms and conditions established for members of the PHTA will be allowed to draw equipment belonging to members of the SAJ. Truckers who fail to meet this minimum standard will not be allowed to haul equipment owned by member companies of the SAJ who are covered under the Standard Interchange Agreement.

Approved trucks will bear a sticker to be displayed on their windshield to indicate their approval on the scheme of registration for truckers.

The Dispute

• (a) The Standard Equipment Interchange Agreement will be adopted by all SAJ and PHTA members.

• (b) PTHA members will sign agreement with each shipping agent based on the Standard Equipment Agreement.

• (c) The SAJ will establish a register of trucking companies, ensuring compliance with all regulations concerning equipment interchange.

5 (5) On the 6 ^th May 2008, a driver of the Claimant was sent to the premises of Kingston Wharves Limited to conduct business. Upon reaching the gate, he was advised that on the instructions of the 2 ^nd Defendant he could not enter the premises.

6 (6) The Claimant states that he was advised during the week of the 2 ^nd October 2008 of a new regime for haulers to enter the premises. The Claimant was advised of a list of requirements that would qualify haulers for obtaining stickers for entry. The Claimant alleges that he had satisfied the requirements which were prescribed by the 1 ^st Defendant.

7 (7) At the heart of this dispute, is a determination by the 1 ^st Defendant, which is deposed to at paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Trevor Riley, the Managing Director of the 1 ^st Defendant that the Claimant has not complied with all the regulations concerning equipment interchange and has not met the minimum standards established under the MOA. Consequently the 1 ^st Defendant has properly refused to issue an "Approved Trucker" sticker to the Claimant.

8 (8) The Claimant's non-compliance is detailed at paragraph 13 of Riley's affidavit. "The 1 ^st Defendant's basis of refusal is the Claimant's unlawful and improper refusal to promptly and expeditiously settle its obligations to...