Wilson (Audrey) and Robinson (Lloyd)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: HARRISON, J.A.:
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2000
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2000] 7 JJC 3111
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 31 July 2000

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE DOWNER, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PANTON, J.A. (Ag.)

DOWNER, J.A.:

I agree.

PANTON, J.A.:

I agree.

SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 61/97

BETWEEN

AUDREY WILSON

2 ^ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AND

LLOYD ROBINSON

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

AND

DENHAM DODD

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

Miss Nancy Anderson and Mr. Chuckwvemeka Cameron , instructed by Crafton S. Miller & Company, for the appellant

Miss Tana'ania Small , instructed by Kelly McLean, for the respondent

DAMAGES - Motor vehicle accident - Partial settlement in 1990 - Final payment delayed seven years - Upgrading of partial settlement to monetary equivalent in 1997 sought - Interest to be awarded

HARRISON, J.A.:

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of (Karl) Harrison, J., on April 16, 1997, on a question of damages. The award reads:

• 1. General Damages

  (a)	Pain and suffering and loss of amenities	$650,000.00
  (b)	Handicap on the labour market	$ 20,000.00

  with interest thereon at the rate of 3% per annum from 27 ^th July 1987 to today

• 2. Special Damages $185.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 3% from 24 ^th January, 1986 up to today

Costs to the plaintiff to be agreed or taxed.

2 The second defendant/appellant seeks to have the court reduce the award by the monetary equivalent in 1997 of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) paid in 1990 to the plaintiff/respondent in partial settlement and that interest be awarded for a period of six years only. The grounds of this appeal, summarised, are:

• (1) Because of the inordinate delay, particularly by the plaintiff/respondent interest should not have been awarded for the entire period to April, 1997.

• (2) The learned trial judge was not informed at the time of assessment of the payment of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the plaintiff/respondent in partial settlement and that the latter payment made in December 1990, should now be upgraded to its value in April 1997 using the consumer price index.

• (3) Such upgraded value should be taken into consideration to reduce the damages and an award of the balance should then be made.

3 Miss Anderson for the appellant argued that at the time of assessment in 1997, the learned trial judge was not informed of the partial settlement by the payment of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the respondent in 1990. She stated that payment was equivalent to six hundred and twenty-one thousand three hundred and twelve dollars forty-six cents ($621,312.46) in 1997, using the consumer price index, and the latter amount should be deducted from the sum of six hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($670,000) awarded for pain and suffering and handicap on the labour market, leaving a balance of forty-eight thousand six hundred and eighty-seven dollars fifty-four cents ($48,687.54) now due to the respondent. Alternatively, the court should apply to the said payment of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) the treasury bill interest rate as used in Peter Williams et al v. United General Insurance Co. Ltd. S.C.C.A....