| Date | 9 July 2003 |
|
|
| Judgment | Carlton Greer v Alstons Engineering Sales & Services Ltd, Privy Counsel 19 June 2003 |
|
|
| The Issue | The application of damages for wrongful detention, loss of use and interest. |
|
|
| Implication |
General discussion of the risks attached to a lengthy litigation. |
printBy comparison to London, one imagines the pace of life in Trinidad and Tobago to be rather sedate. Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than in the processes of the civil law. Last month, in Carlton Greer v Alstons Engineering Sales & Services, the Privy Counsel in London finally decided a case which had been commenced in Trinidad some 19 years earlier. The whole saga started 25 years ago when Mr Greer bought a JCB backhoe from Alstons. That was in 1978. Greer lived in Tobago and Alstons carried on business in Trinidad. Four years later, in 1982, Greer took the JCB back for repair because its gearbox was making an unaccustomed noise. Alstons repaired it and sent Greer a bill amounting to $20,000. Greer refused to pay, claiming that the JCB was still defective. After several inspections by Alstons, the JCB was returned to them in the spring of the following year for further repairs. Time continued to pass by rather slowly and six months later, Greer finally went to collect the machine. At this point an impasse developed, because Greer refused to accept the JCB unless he was allowed a test-drive. Alstons refused to allow him to do so unless he paid the outstanding sum of $20,000 for the first repairs. Greer refused to pay, Alstons refused to allow the test drive and so Greer went away empty handed. Three months later, Greer commenced proceedings in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago for damages for breach of contract and negligence on the part of Alstons. Astonishingly, it was not until eleven years later, in 1995, that the High Court finally gave its decision. So confusing was the judgment that Greer may well have wished that he hadn't bothered. The court held that the first repairs had been carried out correctly by Alstons. They were entitled to payment of $20,000 plus interest from the date when the repairs had been carried out, a period of some 11 years. Despite holding that Alstons were entitled to payment for the first repairs, the court held that they had been in the wrong to demand payment before releasing the JCB. In consequence, Greer was held to be entitled to damages amounting to the value of the JCB at January 1984, when the impass over the repairs and payment had first occurred. That value remained to be assessed, and it was not clear whether Greer would be significantly in pocket, taking into account his obligation to pay for the repairs together with interest. Greer therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. Another six years passed before the Court of Appeal gave its judgment. It is doubtful that the parties thought that the judgment was worth waiting for. The Court of Appeal agreed with the earlier decision that Alston should be entitled to payment of $20,000 in respect of the first repairs, but only as a set-off against the value of the JCB wrongfully detained. Here they disagreed with the High Court. The value of the JCB should be assessed at the date of the judgment of the High Court in 1995, not at the date of detention in 1984. As regards any further damages for loss of use of the JCB, all that the Court of Appeal was prepared to allow were nominal damages of $5,000 covering the loss of use from 1982 to 1984. Once again, Greer thought it correct to appeal the decision, this time to the Privy Counsel, the highest court of appeal in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Greer maintained that he should be entitled to substantial damages for the loss of use of the JCB up to the date of the second repairs in 1984 and that he should be entitled to the value of the JCB at that date, with interest accruing thereafter. In addition, Greer argued that Alstons were not entitled to recover any sum for repairs, because these had not been properly carried out. Greer will be happy that this decision has brought a final end to 19 years of litigation, but he can hardly be happy with the outcome. The $5,000 for loss of use was held to be on the low side, but not so low as to be wrong in principle and to warrant interference by the Privy Counsel. The Privy Counsel agreed that Greer should pay the $20,000 to Alston for the first repairs. The Privy Counsel also refused to upset the Court of Appeal's decision that Greer should be entitled to the value of the JCB as at the date of the judgment of the High Court. It is difficult to see how that represents a fair decision. By that date, the JCB was 17 years old. Even if it had not been used between 1984 and 1995, the Privy Counsel recognised that it would be surprising if, by the end of that time, it was worth more than $20,000. With the bill for repairs therefore likely to be higher than the assessed value of the JCB, after his marathon litigation Greer will receive nothing, except of course a very large legal bill.
CJ-0326
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||