RBTT Bank Jamaica Ltd v Y.P. Seaton and Others

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Mangatal J:
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2009
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2009] 11 JJC 1001
• Date: 10 November 2009
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CLAIM NO. E.083 OF 1993

BETWEEN

RBTT BANK JAMAICA LIMITED

CLAIMANT

AND

Y.P.SEATON

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

AND

EARTHCRANE HAULAGE LIMITED

2 ^nd DEFENDANT

AND

Y.P.SEATON & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

3 ^rd DEFENDANT

CONSOLIDATED WITH

CLAIM NO. C.L.1993/S252

BETWEEN

Y.P.SEATON

CLAIMANT

AND

RBTT BANK JAMAICA LIMITED

DEFENDANT

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Witness statements - Application to strike out portions - Whether inconsistent with statement of case - Scope of declaratory relief

Mangatal J

1 This case was fixed for trial but first an application by RBTT Bank Jamaica Limited "RBTT" to strike out certain paragraphs of the Witness Statements was heard. At the end of the hearing of this application, I asked Counsel on both sides to file further Written Submissions, the last of which were not submitted by RBTT's Attorneys until sometime in September 2009. Although I had ordered that these submissions be handed in by an August date, I have allowed them to stand notwithstanding the late filing given their importance to the point being deliberated.

2 The application seeks an order that paragraphs 58, 59 and 60 of the Witness Statement of York Page Seaton dated 23 ^rd February 2007, and the words "and should repay the full sum of $15,000,000 as deducted and the interest thereon" in paragraph 14, and the words "and J$15,252,584.00" in paragraph 17 of the Supplemental Witness Statement of York Page Seaton dated the 20 ^th April 2007, be struck out.

3 The stated grounds of the application are as follows:

• 1. Neither York Page Seaton personally nor any of his affiliated Companies who are parties to this consolidated action have made any claim or counterclaim on any of their pleadings for $15,252,584.00 with interest thereon which Mr. Seaton is now seeking to claim in his Witness Statement.

• 2. Any claim for $15,252,584.00 would have required a Counterclaim in the Defence filed in Suit No. E083 of 1983 or a claim in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed in C.L.S 252 OF 1993 and that since the matters which gave rise to this claim occurred in or about 1992, any new claim for the sum of $15,252,584.00 with interest thereon would be barred by the operation of the Limitations of Actions Act.

• 3. In any event neither Y.P Seaton personally nor any of his affiliated companies could make any claim in respect of the aforesaid sum as such a claim would be inconsistent to the statements of case already filed on their behalf as they claim they were acting on behalf of Prolacto at all material times in Suit No. E083 of 1983 .

4 The parties were agreed that as the trial judge before whom the case was fixed for trial, I have the jurisdiction to hear this application and that the trial judge has extensive powers to control the evidence given at trial. Reference was made to Part 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2002 "the C.P.R.".

5 The submissions of RBTT

The written submissions settled by learned Queen's Counsel Miss Phillips were very clear and easy to follow and worthy of direct quotation in part:

• 4. A perusal of the pleadings indicates that the circumstances which gave rise to these claims occurred in 1991 pursuant to contractual arrangements commencing in 1990 between an overseas supplier of milk powder, Prolacto, and the Jamaica Commodity Trading Company Limited (JCTC) a statutory body, then charged inter alia with the importation of commodities into Jamaica. Seaton acted in a representative capacity for Prolacto. Prolacto and JCTC agreed that Eagle Commercial Bank (the Bank), one of the predecessor banking institutions which eventually became RBTT would process the payments by JCTC.

• 6.Disputes arose between Prolacto and JCTC resulting in JCTC suing Prolacto and the Bank. The Bank settled with JCTC but sought to recover from Seaton by Suit No. E083 of 1993 , sums which had been paid into Seaton's accounts which ought not to have been paid as incorrect prices had been applied in making certain payments; the wrong rate of foreign exchange was used to compute certain payments; certain commissions were wrongly credited to Prolacto and interest on certain deposits were incorrectly credited to Prolacto and all these sums were paid into the Seaton accounts which were not due. Additionally the Bank had debited Seaton's accounts for a sum totaling J$15,252,584.00 which it had traced into Seaton accounts from the amount paid in by JCTCfor milk powder which was not in fact delivered. In the action the Bank seeks a declaration that this debit was correctly done.

• 7. An examination of the Defence filed by Seaton reveals that in Suit No E. 083 OF 1993 no Counterclaim was filed seeking an order that as the J$15,252,584.00 was wrongly debited, it ought to be repaid to Seaton. Indeed Seaton's defence was merely that in relation to the transaction and the sums claimed he acted as an agent of Prolacto. He however filed a separate claim C.L. 1993/ S 252 seeking the repayment of specific US $ denominated funds which Seaton says had been wrongly debited or withheld from "A" accounts which he says were his personal funds. In fact he stated categorically in paragraph 4 of his Reply " that the transactions dealt with in this suit are not in any way connected with or related to the transaction dealt with in Suit No. E-83 of 1993" . It is submitted that as no cause of action has been pleaded for the recovery of J$ 15,252,584.00 or indeed J $ 15,000,000.00 . Seaton is not entitled in his Witness Statements to seek to claim these amounts.

6 The position of the Y.P.Seaton parties

It was submitted that the important point was whether or not the combined pleadings of the parties disclose sufficient allegations to warrant Mr. Seaton being able to recover the sum of J $ 15,252,584.00.

Both parties were agreed that the ratio of Perestrello v. United Paint [1969] 3 All E.R. 479 (as set out in the headnote) was as follows:

Held- (1) Where a plaintiff has suffered damage of a kind which is not the necessary and immediate consequence of the wrongful act complained of, he must warn the defendant in the pleadings that the compensation claimed will extend to this damage and particularize any item of damage which is capable of substantially exact calculation while at the same time giving the defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible, thus showing him the case he has to meet and assisting him in computing a payment into court; furthermore the extent of this requirement is dictated not by any preconceived notions of what is general or special damage but by the circumstances of the particular case.

7 I agree with Counsel for Y.P. Seaton's submission that whether or not there is a pleading sufficient to ground the claim for recovery of damages, or, as in this case, for a sum of money, will depend upon the circumstances of each case.

8 Again, the written submissions settled by learned Queen's Counsel Mrs. Benka-Coker were very clear and easy to follow and worthy of quotation in full in relation to certain points. In suggesting that the court will have to examine the pleadings in this case, it was submitted that such an examination will disclose the following:

It is therefore submitted that in light of the preceding sub paragraphs 1–8 and (the Perestrello case) it cannot be said that the claimant should have been warned that Y.P.Seaton would seek to recover the sum of $15,252,584.69 when the claimant itself was aware that it had itself debited the said sum from the defendants accounts....

It cannot be argued by the claimant that it was not aware of the amount of the sum that it debited. It cannot be argued that the claimant did not know when the defendants' accounts were debited. It cannot be argued that the claimant does not know the source of the sum which it debited.

It is not a claim that was sprung on the claimant, and it is not a claim the "nature of which had to be disclosed" and as a consequence there is no need on the state of the pleadings for the claimant YPS to seek to amend his claim The claimant knew about the debit that it made from the defendants' accounts, and the claimant YPS is seeking an account from the claimant in relation to all sums held to his account by the claimant.

• 1. At paragraph 3 of its endorsement on its Writ of Summons dated the 30 ^th July 1993 the claimant seeks the following:

  " a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to debit the accounts of the defendants held with the plaintiff in the sum of $15,254,583.69 by reason of the overpayment of in mistake of the said amounts and/or their credit or payment in error to the defendants or on their behalf."

• 2. Paragraph 21 of the claimant's Amended Statement of Claim seeks to explain the reason for the overpayment and the manner in which the overpayment was computed in order to arrive at the final figure.

• 3. Paragraph 22 alleges...