St. Lucia Rental Company Ltd v Lucombe
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1968 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1968 HC 26 |
| Docket Number | No. 39 of 1968 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 31 July 1968 |
Supreme Court
Bishop, J.
No. 39 of 1968
V. F. Floissac for the plaintiff
Defendant in person
Contract - Loan of goods — Plaintiff claimed the return of certain properties loaned to the defendant — The court was satisfied that the defendant had no reasonable excuse for not returning the said goods — The court ordered the return of the television set and ordered general damages in the sum of $240.00.
This action came on for hearing on the 22 nd July 1968, and at the outset I drew to the attention of the defendant Lucombe that he had not entered appearance, nor had he filed a defence to the allegations made against him, and that his failure to do these things meant by virtue of the law of this island, that he was not now in a position to do so without leave, but that he would be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses called by the plaintiff Company.
The defendant replied that he had appeared at the chambers of the plaintiff's solicitor. I then asked him if u he had received a writ of summons and declaration and whether he had read it. I invited him to read it in Court. He said that he had received it but did not have it with him in Court. Thereupon I read aloud for his benefit the following extract from the writ of summons on record in this case:
“WE COMMAND YOU to summon the above-named defendant to appear before Our said Supreme Court…within eight days from the day of the service of this writ, to answer the demand contained in the declaration hereto annexed.
IN DEFAULT WHEREOF judgment may be rendered by default against the said defendant.”
On being told this, the defendant informed me that he appealed. To my question against what are you appealing; the defendant replied that he was appealing against my judgment. I told him I had not delivered any judgment yet and in any event that was not the way to appeal against a decision of this Court.
I asked the defendant whether he had a defence to the charges made against him. He said, Yes, and I asked him what was it? He said, among other things, that he had rented the television set and while it was in his possession it was damaged. In order to have the damage repaired he sent it to the island of Barbados whence it was returned and was now in his possession.
I told the defendant that in my view this was not a good defence because it was a breach of another clause of the agreement and I asked him if he was defending one breach by the commission of another. I referred to the relevant clause of the agreement form and read it aloud to him. The relevant clause reads thus: — “6. The equipment belongs to the Company. The Hirer must net sell it or pledge it or allow it to go out of his possession; nor must he, without the Company's written permission, move it from the premises where it is installed, nor interfere or tamper with it, nor let anyone else do so”.
The defendant also informed the Court that the plaintiff solicitor had misled him when they made an attempt to resolve their differences. He said among other things, that the plaintiff's solicitor had informed him that it was not necessary for him to enter an appearance. I told the defendant that if he was accusing the plaintiff's solicitor of deliberately misleading him then it was a serious accusation to make, and if proved to be true it would mean that I would deal with the solicitor accordingly, whereas if it were not established then I would deal with him appropriately.
With the leave of the Court, counsel for the plaintiff Company informed the Court that the breakdown of arrangements to settle the matter was duo to the defendant's own action. He stated that proposals made by the plaintiff Company to the defendant were accented and honoured for a short period — the length of which I do not new recall — and then rejected; new proposals urged by the defendant were unacceptable to the plaintiff Company and the defendant was informed by letter (from plaintiff's solicitor) of this and of the likelihood of legal proceedings being taken against him. Counsel intimated that the plaintiff Company were even now willing to discuss a probable solution, but the defendant informed the Court that he rejected this offer. The matter thus went on for trial.
The only evidence on which this matter stands to be determined is that of Thomas Kenneth Archer, managing director the St. Lucia Rental Co. Ltd. His evidence was largely un-contradicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial