Greenaway v Taylor

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J. (Ag)
• Judgment Date: 26 July 2011
• Neutral Citation: MS 2011 HC 1
• Docket Number: MNIHCV 7 of 2009
• Date: 26 July 2011

Greenaway

and

Taylor

Readhead, J. (Ag.)

MNIHCV 7 of 2009

High Court

Damages - Negligent repair of motor vehicle or breach of contract in repairing vehicle — Quantum.

Appearances:

Mr. David S. Brandt - for the claimant.

Mr. Jean Kelsick - for the defendant.

Redhead, J. (Ag)

1 The Claimant filed a claim on 13 ^th February 2009 against the Defendant seeking the sum of $12,500.00 for breach of contract or alternatively for negligence in the repair of his motor vehicle. The Claimant is also claiming interest at the rate of 14 percent from 20 ^th December 2008.

2 When the matter came on for hearing on 25 ^th May 2011, Mr. Kelsick, learned counsel for the defendant, objected to the witness statement filed by the Claimant on 20 ^th May 2011 going into evidence.

3 Mr. Kelsick pointed to the fact that on 24 ^th July 2009, Master Mathurin made an order that the Claimant should file his witness statement by 20 ^th October 2009. Instead his witness statement was filed on 20 ^th May 2011, one year and seven months later. Mr. Kelsick argued that the Claimant not having complied with the learned Master's orders and did not apply for any relief, the Court should not grant him permission to use the Witness Statement Rule 29.11(1) and (2).

4 I upheld the objections by Mr. Kelsick and therefore the Claimant's witness statement was struck out.

5 The Claimant in his Statement of Claim alleges that by an oral agreement he made on or about the month of October 2007 with the defendant, the Claimant agreed to employ him as his mechanic to repair his pickup truck and to pay the Defendant for the said repairs. The Defendant accepted the employment to repair the said vehicle.

6 The Claimant alleges that in the month of October 2007 he drove his motor vehicle to the defendant's work place and delivered the said vehicle to the Defendant. The Claimant alleges that the value of the said vehicle at the time of delivery was $12,500.00. The Claimant also alleges that it was a term of the agreement or alternatively it was the duty of the Defendant to exercise all reasonable care, skill, diligence and competence as a mechanic to repair the said vehicle within a reasonable time and to take reasonable care of the said vehicle.

7 Finally the Claimant alleges that realizing that the Defendant had kept the vehicle in his possession for some time, he visited the Defendant at the mechanic shop to enquire of the said vehicle and the Defendant told him that he was working on the said vehicle.

8 The Claimant said that on or about the 29 ^th December 2008 he came home and found the said motor vehicle at the side of the public road near his house. The Defendant in cross examination sought to deny that there was a contract between him and the Claimant. In cross examination by Mr. Brandt the Defendant said “I did not enter into any agreement with Claimant. I told him I would look at the vehicle and assess it because I was busy with a client.”

9 However learned counsel for the Defendant in his oral submission admitted that there was a contract between Claimant and the Defendant. Learned counsel in my view had no choice having regard to the overwhelming evidence in support of a contract between the parties; in addition the Defendant billed the Claimant for work done on the vehicle.

10 The Defendant has given reasons why he was unable to effect the repairs to the Claimant's vehicle. Basically what the Defendant said was that after the Claimant delivered the vehicle in front of his gate he was unable to make contact with the Claimant and because of lack of finance he, the Defendant, was unable to source the parts from abroad to carry out the repairs.

11 In fact in his defense paragraph 9 the Defendant pleaded, that after completing the examination on the vehicle he did his best to repair it but he was unable to do so because (a) of the extremely poor condition it was in (b) it needed new parts that he could not source and with which the Claimant did not corporate in sourcing and (c) the removal there from by the battery thus making it very difficult for the claimant to do his work.

12 The Defendant also pleaded that starting in early 2008 he apprised the Claimant of the several problems he had encountered in repairing the said vehicle and asked him to visit his place of business to discuss them. The Claimant failed to do so. (Paragraph 10 of the defense)

13 Under cross examination he said that he started to do the repairs but was unable to complete because he could not get the chassis number. The Defendant however, admitted that in licensing a vehicle one is required to supply the chassis number. He also admitted that he has for several years had to licensed vehicles.

14 The Defendant then admitted that he had gone to one Mr. Clifford Ryan at the licensing department and obtained the chassis number for the Claimant's vehicle.

15 The Defendant said in cross-examination that he formed the impression that the vehicle could be repaired but not by him because he does not do body work because, as he put it, that was outside of his “capabilities”. He further said in cross-examination that the body of the vehicle was in a state of disrepair.

16 The Defendant insisted under cross examination that the Claimant did not go to see him when he was asked by him to do so. The Defendant gave many other reasons why he, the Defendant, was unable to complete the repairs.

17 In my considered opinion the Defendant has paid scant regard for the truth. I have...