Goddard v Barbados Taxi Cabs Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Ward, J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 June 1975
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Docket Number: No. 32 of 1974
• Date: 20 June 1975

Divisional Court

Ward, J.; Williams, J.

No. 32 of 1974

Goddard

and

Barbados Taxi Cabs Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. M. King for the appellant

Mr. H. B. St. John, QC for the respondent

Industrial Law - Severance Payment.

Facts: The issue was whether summary dismissal of the plaintiff was justified, he was entitled to severance payment under Section 46 of the Severance Payments Act, 1971.

Held: That on the evidence summary dismissal of the appellant was justified and therefore he was not entitled to a severance payment under the Act.

JUDGMENT:

1 On March 30, 1973, the appellant, Coleridge Goddard who had been employed as a watchman for about 12 years by respondent company, Barbados Taxi Cabs Ltd., was summarily dismissed. His action against the company for damages for wrongful dismissal and. under section 4 of the Severance Payments Act, 1971 No. 24 was unsuccessful and hence his appeal to this court.

2 Two main questions appear to present themselves for decision. First, were the facts as found by the magistrate reasonably supported by the evidence. Secondly, if they were, did they provide an adequate ground for summary dismissal. Was summary dismissal justified in the circumstances of the case?

3 The essential facts as found by the magistrate are as follows:–

• (i) he was on duty as watchman on the night of March 26th to 27th, 19?3;

• (ii) in the course of the night the premises were broken and a car — MA 687 was stolen;

• (iii) a welding machine, a noisy piece of equipment, was used to cut a wire partition between the workshop and the main parking area where the car was;

• (iv) the car was then driven through the front door where the appellant should have been;

• (v) when on the morning of March 27th a workman pointed. out to the appellant that the workshop had been broken and the partition cut, the appellant left the premises without checking to see what had been stolen and without having reported the incident to the Manager.

4 It is clear from the evidence of Michael Springer, the mechanic, and from that of the appellant himself that a breaking did take place on the night of March 26th to 27th and that the were partition had been cut to provide entry to the parking area. Though no one saw the welding machine being used to cut the wire, the inference that it was used for this purpose flowed reasonably and clearly from the condition in which Mr. Springer said he found the workshop on the morning of March 27th. And though there was no eye-witness to say that the car was driven through the front door that night, there can be no doubt, and before us there appeared to be no dispute, that the car was stolen; and if stolen, all the circumstances point to the theft having taken place that night.

5 Mr. Springer's evidence throws light also on other findings of the magistrate. He stated that Mr. Egan, the manager, was there when he called the appellant to show him the condition in which he found the workshop on the morning of the 27th. The magistrate's criticism of the appellant for having left the premises without reporting the incident to the manager is therefore without substance. The appellant would have seen the manager to be present when Mr. Springer pointed out what he had found. And as to the appellant's having left...