Montserrat Electricity Services Ltd v Ponde

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Robotham, CJ.
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1985
• Neutral Citation: MS 1985 CA 3
• Docket Number: Mag. Civ. Appeal No. 3 of 1984
• Date: 22 January 1985

Montserrat Electricity Services Ltd.

and

Ponde

Robotham, C.J.; Bishop, J.A.; Williams, J.A. (Ag)

Mag. Civ. Appeal No. 3 of 1984

Court of Appeal

Contract - Undertaking — Whether enforceable — Appeal against judgment — Whether an undertaking to remove a pole “soon” was enforceable — The statements of the appellant did not create a contractual relationship — There was no special relationship between the parties that would qualify the statement as negligent — No evidence to indicate that the company acted negligently or unreasonably — Appeal allowed.

K. Allen for the Appellant

J.S. Weekes for the Respondent

1 Robotham, CJ. DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2 The Plaintiff herein claimed the sum of $720 for damages for trespass and/or nuisance against the defendant for placing or allowing an electric pole to remain on his land thereby depriving him of its use and enjoyment. Alternatively, the sum of $720 for breech of an agreement by the defendant whereby it was agreed that they would remove the pole so that the Plaintiff could commence construction of his house. The Plaintiff says that relying on the said agreement he acted to his detriment in purchasing 50 bags of cement. This cement he complained was spoilt because of the negligent way in which the work was undertaken and the undue delay that took place before it was eventually completed.

3 The claim for trespass and nuisance was not pursued at the trial and on the hearing of this appeal, counsel for the respondent very rightly conceded that the questions which had to be decided were

• (1) Was the undertaking of Hilton Howson the general manager of the appellant company, to remove the pole “soon” an enforceable one in law and

• (2) Did the Company act negligently and unreasonably in carrying out the undertaking assuming that the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative.

4 This pole was planted on the Plaintiff's land by the Appellant's predecessors and was done by authority of law. An undertaking was then given to have the pole removed as soon as the Plaintiff was ready to build on the land.

5 In March 1983 the Plaintiff requested Mr. Howson General Manager of the Defendant Company to have the pole removed and was told that he would have to pay $ 15000 to accomplish this. On the intervention of the Chief Minister, the Company agreed to remove the pole by relocating the line and the pole.

6 On August 5, 1983 the Plaintiff saw Howson who told him that the pole would be removed “soon”, No specific date was given but the work was commenced the following week. It is solely on the basis of this undertaking by Howson that the Plaintiff's action is based.

7 So soon as the work was...