Montserrat Electricity Services Ltd Defendant/Appellant v Reginald Ponde Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: ROBOTHAM, CJ.,Chief Justice
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1985
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1985] ECSC J0122-1
• Docket Number: MAGISTERIAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 3 of 1984
• Date: 22 January 1985

Between:

Montserrat Electricity Services Ltd.

Defendant/Appellant

and

Reginald Ponde

Plaintiff/Respondent

[1985] ECSC J0122-1

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robotham—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop

The Honourable Mr. Justice Williams (Acting)

MAGISTERIAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 3 of 1984

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Appearances:

K. Allen for the Appellant

J. S. Weekes for the Respondent

ROBOTHAM, CJ.

DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1 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.

2 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 tobe 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 So soon as the work was commenced, the plaintiff, asked the line supervisor Fagan when the work would be finished, and he was told"the following Sunday".

7 On August 11, 1983 the Plaintiff went and purchased 600 concrete blocks and 50 bags of cement. No steps, towards starting construction had yet been taken by the Plaintiff, and he...