Linton v Jackman and Brathwaite
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Kentish, J. |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 2014 HC 67 |
| Docket Number | 1500 of 2000 |
| Court | High Court (Barbados) |
| Date | 20 May 2014 |
High Court
Kentish, J.
1500 of 2000
Mr. Leslie Haynes Q.C. for the plaintiff.
Ms. Vonda Pile for the first defendant.
Mr. Hal Lollop for the second defendant
Tort - Conversion — Detinue — Whether claimant in possession of goods at relevant times — Action dismissed.
At all material times the plaintiff was a tenant of a building situate at ‘Elisaville’, Black Rock, St. Michael (“the premises”), where he carried on his business of automobile repairs and painting.
On 14 July 2000 the plaintiff filed an action in which he sought:
- Delivery up of the goods and chattels identified in the first and second Schedules of the statement of claim or alternatively their value; 2. Damages for detention; and 3. Damages for conversion.
Some 67 items were listed in the first and second Schedules, the total value of which is $76,202.31.
It is the plaintiff's claim that the said goods and chattels (“the goods”) were unlawfully removed from the premises by the first and second defendants, and/or their servants or agents, between 16 and 30 October 1998 and the first and second defendants have been in wrongful possession of the goods since then.
The plaintiff also contends that, despite demands made to both the first and second defendants for delivery up of the goods, the defendants have failed and refused to deliver up the same and have thereby converted the goods to their own use and have deprived the plaintiff of the same.
On 11 August 2000 the first and second defendants filed their respective Defences.
When the matter came before me on 24 July 2013, counsel for the plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to amend the first and second Schedules of the statement of claim to omit therefrom an 18 foot speed boat and an 80 gallon air compressor valued at $35,000.00 and $5,865.00 respectively. As a consequence, the total value of the goods was reduced to $35,377.31.
Also on that date, the court made orders that counsel for the first defendant, second defendant and plaintiff file and serve closing arguments on or before 31 July 2013, 13 September 2013 and 20 September 2013 respectively. Counsel for all parties have failed to comply with this Order and closing arguments remain outstanding to the date of writing.
Some explanation is required of the long passage of this action through the court. The action was filed on 14 July 2000. The plaintiff filed his List of Documents on 9 October 2001. On 5 November 2001 it was ordered that, within 14 days of the order, the parties serve their respective lists of
– 4 –
documents and that there be inspection of the documents 14 days after service.
On 24 May 2002 the plaintiff filed a Certificate of Readiness and a Request for Hearing. Thereafter, two Motions Day Notices were filed on 24 May 2002 and 28 August 2002. Those notices were then followed by the service of three Take Notices with the last notice specifying 23 August 2004 as the trial date.
The first defendant then filed her list of documents on 21 July 2004 and a further Take Notice was served specifying 12 May 2005 as the trial date.
Trial of the action then commenced before Kentish, J. on 1 February 2006 and continued on 2 February 2006 when it was adjourned until 29 September 2006. On 28 September 2006, Counsel for the plaintiff wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and informed the court that he would be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for 29 September 2006 due to an emergency out of the jurisdiction.
On inspection of the court file, it appears that the matter then lay dormant for a period of almost five years until counsel for the plaintiff wrote to the Registrar to request that the matter be set down for completion before Kentish, J.
The matter was then set down for trial on 25 January 2012, but was adjourned at the request of the court due to the Judge's unavailability on sick leave. Counsel for the plaintiff wrote to the Registrar on 9 February 2012 and again on 25 June 2012 requesting trial dates.
The matter then came before me on 16 and 18 April 2013. On the latter date the matter was adjourned to 24 July 2013 and trial of the action was completed on that date.
In his evidence-in-chief, Ralph Linton stated that he carries on the trade of automobile repairs and painting and has about 30 years' experience in that trade. He prepares estimates for body work and painting for various insurance companies.
He carried on this trade from premises which he rented in 1984 from Ms. Mary Jackman. The first defendant became his landlord in 1995. He paid rent of $160.00 per month and received receipts. Receipts for rent for the period April 1995 to May 1996 were admitted into evidence as Exhibits “RL 1” to “RL 18”.
In 1995 the first defendant served him notice to quit. After he was served with the notice, and in 1996, he made an agreement with the first defendant that he would be able to keep the parts on the premises, would not work there, but would check on the parts every two weeks to see they were intact.
The first defendant continued to accept rent after the expiration of the notice to quit. He was still a tenant in October 1998 and at that time he had the following goods stored there: (i) cars; (ii) an 18 foot speed boat; (iii) compressors for painting; (iv) car jacks; (v) bonnets; and (vi) bumpers. He never vacated or abandoned the premises.
Referred to the list of goods as reproduced in the statement of claim, he stated that he prepared the list of goods in October 1996. The list contained the goods above as well as tyres, bonnets and paint guns. Prices of the goods also appeared on the list. He did not fix the prices on the lists of his own knowledge. He obtained the prices from parts dealers, with the exception of the prices for the Jaguar parts which were obtained from Michael Ward, an importer of Jaguars. He would be able to identify the list by the prices of the parts.
On 6 October 1998 he visited the premises in the presence of the first defendant and her daughter Gloria Jackman. He opened the workshop to check whether everything was in order. He remembers telling the first defendant that he would not be in the Island for a week and when he returned he would move the parts since he had located a property at Brittons Hill Crossroads. Everything was intact and he locked the workshop and left.
When he returned to Barbados and went to the premises towards the end of October, the door was removed and all the goods removed except the 1959 Jaguar Mark II. The parts that were removed included: (i) the 18 foot speed boat; (ii) a 160J Datsun; (iii) a compressor; (iv) paint guns; (v) bonnets; and (vi) tools.
When he observed that those goods had been removed he asked the first defendant where the parts were and her reply was that the second defendant had removed the parts from the workshop. He then called his Attorney, Mr. Haynes Q.C., and reported the matter to the Black Rock Police Station. Sergeant Scantlebury accompanied him back to the premises.
He made a police report to Sergeant Scantlebury verbally and in writing and the written report was given to him (the plaintiff) at the end of November or early December. That report contained a list of the goods in the workshop and it was made about a week after he made the oral report.
He then contacted the second defendant who told him that he had dumped the parts and that the boat and the compressor were at an Adrian Smith in The Pine.
He did not authorise the first defendant or the second defendant to enter the premises, nor did he authorise the removal of the goods stored on the premises.
His lawyer sent correspondence to the first and second defendants and he remembers seeing that correspondence. He got the correspondence through the post. The correspondence to Adrian Smith related to the parts stored in The Pine. He also remembers seeing correspondence that went to the first and second defendants in relation to the same parts from the workshop. He still has the correspondence in his possession.
The premises were locked with a bolt and master lock and he was the only person with keys to the lock. When he returned to the premises the door and lock were missing.
There were two sets of articles in the workshop. One set he owned personally and the second set belonged to clients. The first set of goods included:
One 351 Plymouth motor car, left hand drive; — $50 000.00
One blue trowel plastic garbage bin;
One 18 foot speed boat with 140 engine, galvanised trailer and cover, registration no. 165 named “Seahorse”; — $35 000.00
One 1979 Datsun 160J — $ 3 000.00
One clothes line — $75.00
Ten used tyres at $30.00 each — $300.00
One left front door for a Suzuki $ 150.00
One 1970 G1 x 2000 bonnet — $400.00
One G1 x 2000 trunk — $350.00
Three front bumpers for Toyota Corolla $100.00 each — $300.00
One rear bumper Toyota Corolla — $100.00
Four 6 1/2 x 15 Suzuki Samurai rims — $1,240.00
One 13 inch Honda Accord Rim — $1,240.00
One tyre for Honda Accord — $80.00
One box of tools — $600.00
Two pairs of heavy duty jack props — $360.00
Four 18 x 14 tarpaulins at $80.00 each — $320.00
One box of tools, paint guns, tops for gas bottles and cleaners — $500.00
One 8 gallon compressor — $6 000.00
One U-Tow bar — $270.00
One box containing shredding — $350.00
One complete set of leather seat covers for 1959 Jaguar Mark IV — $4,440.00
One spare wheel for Jaguar Mark IV — $500.00
One green console for Jaguar Mark IV — $1,000.00
The approximate value of the goods listed is $67,000.00 and the value of the goods which belonged to him and were removed is $67,000.00. The Jaguar Mark IV belonged to his client Dr. Cyril Nelson and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial