Bramson v Carrington and Sealy

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Husbands, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 November 1979
• Neutral Citation: BB 1979 HC 55
• Docket Number: No. 454 of 1975
• Date: 29 November 1979

High Court

Husbands, J.

No. 454 of 1975

Bramson

and

Carrington and Sealy

Mr. George Moe Q.C., for the plaintiff.

Mr. Lester Whitehead and Messrs Yearwood and Boyce for the defendants.

Contract - Breach — Duty as Solicitor

Husbands, J.

1 The plaintiff is a businessman. From time to time he would consult the defendant firm of attorneys-at-law on business matters. In 1969 the plaintiff was employed as managing director of a company known as International Systems Associates (Barbados) Ltd. In October 1971, the company terminated his contract of employment. He consulted Mr. Blackman, a partner in the defendant firm of attorneys-at-law, about the lawfulness of his dismissal. He was advised that the terms of his employment stipulated that any such question relating to wrongful dismissal had to be determined by arbitration in New York. He duly referred the matter for arbitration and on 21 ^st June, 1972 the arbitrators awarded him the sum of $9,860 (and a percentage of the administrative fees) in full settlement of all claims submitted for arbitration.

2 According to the plaintiff on receipt of the news of the award he again consulted Mr. Blackman who undertook to do all that was legally necessary to have the award made effective in Barbados against his former employers here. For this purpose he gave Mr. Blackman a certified copy of the arbitration award and put him in touch with his New York attorney-at-law. Mr. Blackman gave him to understand that he was pursuing the matter. However he subsequently discovered that Mr. Blackman had done nothing.

3 The plaintiff says he became aware that a receiver had been appointed, that a winding up order was made against International Systems Associates (Barbados) Ltd. in March 1972 and that in October 1972 Mr. H. S. L. Moseley was appointed as liquidator. The plaintiff claims that between March 1972 and October 1972 the receiver had sufficient funds out of which his arbitration award may have been satisfied. That this was not done he attributes to the negligence of Mr. Blackman in not pursuing his claim after legally contracting so to do.

4 Mr. Blackman's account of what took place between himself and the plaintiff after the arbitration award was made differs from that of the plaintiff. Mr. Blackman says –

“It is not my recollection that I at any time told him I was going to court to secure a judgment of the Supreme Court of Barbados in respect of the arbitration award. I told him in the light of intervening events it was a case of throwing good money after bad. I have no recollection of advising Mr. Bramson that I had filed a suit in the Supreme Court. If I had so advised I think I would remember.”

5 Mr. Blackman says he took no step to have the award made effective in Barbados because he knew that there were other judgments outstanding against International Systems Associates (Barbados) Ltd. which would rank higher than the arbitration award and the assets of that company could not satisfy those judgments. He never advised that the award should be registered as a judgment in the Supreme Court of Barbados and never undertook so to register it. He denies negligence or breach of contract.

6 The evidence reveals that on 6 ^th February, 1973 a meeting of the creditors of the International Systems Associates (Barbados) Ltd was held under the chairmanship of the liquidator Mr. Moseley. Mr. Moseley's notes of that meeting produced and admitted by consent, show that the plaintiff was present and that Mr. Blackman was there also but not as the plaintiff's representative. At that meeting Mr. Moseley informed those present that from his observations the liabilities of the company exceeded its assets by $100,922.57. The plaintiff asked if his name was among the list of creditors. Mr. Moseley said that it was and advised that he submit a proof of debt.

7 A proof of debt dated 23 ^rd February, 1973 was submitted to the liquidator. The proof was prepared by Mr. Blackman but there is some dispute about the circumstances leading to its preparation. Mr. Blackman's recollection is that he prepared it as a result of the liquidator's notice in January giving notice of the meeting on 6 ^th February, 1973. The plaintiff's recollection is that it was after Mr. Moseley's advice at the meeting of 6 ^th February, 1973 that he went to Mr. Blackman and had the proof prepared. The date of the document, 23 ^rd February, 1973, and the fact that Mr. Blackman did not represent the plaintiff at the creditors' meeting of 6 ^th February, 1973 favour the plaintiff's collection.

8 On 13 ^th June, 1975, the plaintiff wrote the liquidator calling upon him to give preference to and pay the plaintiff from the monies he held “as liquidator, under the Companies Act of 1910 for the International Systems Associates (Barbados) Ltd., the following sum:

• “1. Salary due in accordance with award made by the American Arbitration Association, in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment in the amount of US $9 870.00.

• 2. Severance pay, as per the provisions of the ...