Huggins Neal Nicholas v (1) Attorney General of St Lucia (2) Teaching Service Commission
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | COTTLE, J. |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2008] ECSC J0314-2 |
| Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2005/0758 |
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2005/0758
Mr. B. Stephen & Mr. G. Charlemagne for the Claimant
Mrs. B. Portland Reynolds for the Defendants
The Claimant was employed as a teacher by the Government of St. Lucia. In March 1997 he was arrested and serious criminal charges were laid against him. Upon being charged he was suspended from duty and given half pay effective March 10th, 1997. This was reduced to no pay effective October 1st, 1998. On April 3rd, 1999 the criminal charges were dismissed.
Consequent on this dismissal of the criminal charges the Claimant ought to have been recalled to work from suspension. The arrears of salary due to him ought to have been paid. This was not done. It is not difficult to discern the reason behind the reluctance of his employers to reinstate the Claimant. The criminal charges were of a serious nature. The dismissal was not as a result of a trial. It appears that the virtual complainant failed to testify. No reasons for this are apparent fromthe record. The Claimant decided to pursue further studies. He left St. Lucia for the UK in 1999 during the month of August. Prior to that he had written to his employers seeking study leave with pay. When no response was forthcoming he wrote seeking study leave without pay. He received no written response. When cross examined he said that this meant he got no response in writing. I find that he received no response at all.
The Claimant wrote to the Ministry of Education seeking to have his arrears of salary paid. This was not done.
Meanwhile the Claimant completed his studies abroad. He qualified as an attorney at law and commenced private practice in 2002. He is still at the private bar.
In 2005 the Claimant brought the present claim. He seeks damages for breach of contract. He seeks aggravated damages for the disgrace, humiliation, inconvenience and embarrassment caused by the breach. He seeks his salary withheld to date, and continuing monthly. He seeks gratuity and pension payments as well as interest. The Claimant's position is that he is still a teacher. He has never resigned his post. The Defendants have refused to reinstate him consequent on his acquittal of all relevant criminal charges.
I shall deal with the issue of breach of contract below but it is convenient to state at the outset that the Claimant's contention that he is still a teacher is at odds with the facts as I have found them.
The Claimant left the state in 1999. He did so without the permission of his employers. He commenced reading law and went into private practice in 2002. This is inconsistent with his claim to still be a teacher. I conclude that the Claimant abandoned his employment as a teacher in August 1999 when he commenced his legal training.
I am reinforced in my conclusion when I consider that the Claimant has led no evidence of his earnings from his practice over the last five (5) years. He does not say I have sought to mitigate my losses and have earned this money to survive and maintain my family pending my reinstatement as a teacher.
From the evidence before the Court it is clear that the Defendants were wrong to refuse or fail to reinstate the Claimant. They were wrong to refuse to pay him the arrears of salary due to him after his period of interdiction from duty should have ended. The issue which remains to be determined is what compensation if any, is due to the Claimant to redress his injury.
The Claimant has urged the Court to consider the decision of the Privy Council inMc Laughlin v AG a decision delivered on July 23rd, 2007 on...
To continue reading
Request your trial