The Attorney General of St. Lucia v The Caribbean American Tourist Corporation (St. Lucia) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Lewis, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1968 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1968 CA 4 |
| Docket Number | No. 92 of 1965 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 22 June 1968 |
West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (Court of Appeal)
Lewis, C.J., Gordon and Lewis, JJ.A.
No. 92 of 1965
J.D.B. Renwickick (Attorney General) for appellant.
K. Foster for respondent.
Practice and procedure - Declaration — Amendment — The defendant sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court in which the judge allowed amendments to the plaintiff's declaration in a number of particulars.
The facts were that the Government, in pursuance of a lease between it and himself, had entered into possession of certain lands, and had commenced to negotiate business and financial arrangements for the requisite development of the land in accordance with the lease agreement. The plaintiff sought to allege in the declaration that the government wrongly served upon it a letter in which it informed the plaintiff that it had determined the lease under the provisions of clause 3(c) thereto and had repossessed the demised premises –
Held: The various amendments would be allowed. Order made that the plaintiff/respondent pay the defendant/applicant all costs incurred and thrown away as a result of the amendment. Leave to appeal granted.
The plaintiff/respondent filed a declaration in this case on the 16 th July 1965, and subsequently filed, partly at the request of the defendant, and partly on an order of the court, particulars both in respect of the various allegations in the declaration and in respect of the damages claimed.
The defendant/appellant duly filed a defence and a counter-claim to which a reply and defence to counter claim were filed, and thereafter the case was inscribed for proof and hearing. This was on the 14 th January 1966. One is struck by the length of time which has elapsed since that date without the case having come before the court for trial.
On the 17 th of November 1967, the plaintiff using a procedure not authorized by the Civil Code of Procedure, but apparently acting under English rules of procedure which do not apply in this country, filed a summons asking for his declaration to be amended in a number of particulars and indeed in effect seeking to substitute a new declaration or for the one which had been filed over two years previously.
This summons, although it purported to follow the English procedure, was not supported by any affidavit as it should have been, whether it was made in the form of a petition as the law of this country requires, or whether it was made according to the English procedure; however, the application was eventually heard by the learned trial judge who made an order on May 18 th 1968, allowing the amendments conditional upon certain conversions of currency being submitted and the costs being paid.
From that order the defendant welts leave to appeal.
By its original declaration the plaintiff had set out that in pursuance of a lease entered into between itself and the Government of St. Lucia, it had entered into possession of certain lands situate at Vieux-Fort and had commenced to negotiate business and financial arrangements for the requisite development of the said lands in accordance with the agreement. It said that on the 16 th January 1956, the Government – to phrase it – wrongfully served upon it a letter in which it informed the plaintiff that it had determined the lease under the provisions of clause 3(c) thereto, and had repossessed the demised lands.
The plaintiff contended that it was not in default for various reasons which it set out. It alleged that as a result of the defendant's act in serving this notice, its business arrangements had been prejudiced and it had suffered extensive damages, and ended by asking for an order declaratory of its rights under the lease in respect of certain matters mentioned in the body of the declaration.
It also claimed general damages for breach of quiet enjoyment, and for slander of title, and for what is described as “non-fulfillment of the defendant's obligations arising from the relation of lessor and lessee”, the particular obligations not being specified; and special damages in accordance with various particulars that were given in the body of the declaration. Included in those particulars of special damage was a claim for loss of future profits and loss of business over the unexpired term of the lease in respect of certain alleged development plans.
As I have said extensive particulars were subsequently given in respect of this Declaration, and it is not necessary for me to go into them in detail for the purpose of this appeal.
In the new or amended Declaration the plaintiff, after referring to the lease, alleges in paragraph 5(a) that certain lands, referred to as the race-course area, had been surrendered to the defendant, and alternative lands requested in exchange or substitution under the contract of the lease, and that it had not been given the lands in exchange. This is a development of paragraph 7(b) of the original Declaration in which a vague reference had been made to the failure of the defendant to designate alternative sites. The plaintiff then goes on to allege that as a result of the failure to give these alternative sites it has been retorted and presented from developing the premises. In paragraph 5(c) failure on the part of the Government to agree and approve plans for a hotel is alleged, and this is a reference to paragraph 7(a) of the original Declaration in which it had been alleged that the Government has failed to approve the plaintiff's architectural plans, without any specific reference to a hotel. Then in paragraph 5(d) it is alleged that the Government had failed to give its consent in writing to a proposed sub-lease and to issue a licence to the proposed sub-lessor under the Aliens Land Holding Regulation Ordinance; and here again this, it is said, was holding up the development of the lands. This refers to the original paragraph 7(c) which alleged that the defendant had failed to approve in writing the St. Lucia Development Company Limited.
In respect of these matters particulars had been given during the course of the progress of the pleadings which clarified the vague allegations made in the declaration and it has been submitted that these amendments ought to be allowed because they do nothing more than to put into proper form what already appears from the documents filed in the case.
The learned Attorney General has agreed with respect to 5(a), that is the matter relating to the racecourse; and to a certain extent in respect of 5(b); but he objects to the allegations in 5(b) and (c) with regard to the alleged retarding of the development of the premises.
In paragraph 6 a new publication in respect of an alleged slander of title is put forward and it is alleged that the defendant wrongfully, falsely and maliciously wrote to Messrs. Travelstead and Iglehart a letter in which the Government said they were currently examining the validity of the lease. Apparently, this is put forward in connection with the claim for damages for slander of title which is made in both the original and the new Declarations. Then there is an allegation of a conversation with a professional person in paragraph 6(b), the relevancy of which is not readily apparent; and in 6(c) the serving upon the plaintiff of the letter of 16 th January 1965 is repeated. Then there is added – to what the learned Attorney General has objected to – an allegation of a wrongful, false and malicious publication of that letter also to Messrs. G. Ware Travelstead and P.C. Iglehart. In the course of the argument at the bar it was agreed that this was a reference to paragraph 8(b) of the original claim. I may say here that the original Declaration carried two paragraphs numbered 7 and this has been amended by altering the second paragraph 7 to paragraph 8; so it has been agreed that this is a reference to an allegation in paragraph 89b) that the plaintiff has suffered damage by publication of the letter of 16 th January 1965 to the St. Lucia Development Company Limited. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated at the bar that these two gentlemen Travelstead and Iglehart were directors of the company to whom the publication had been made, and that if this new paragraph 6(c) was amended to read “falsely and maliciously sent to the St. Lucia Development Company Limited through their directors Messrs. Travelstead and Iglehart” this would be satisfactory. The learned Attorney General does not object to this.
Paragraph 7 repeats some of what was in the original paragraph 7 and contains reference to the failure to approve the sub-lease and I think in general it has been agreed that, having regard to the particulars given, this new paragraph really does not add anything new to the original declaration.
New paragraph 8 repeats what was alleged partly in paragraph (b) and partly in paragraph (a) of the old (8), namely disturbance and prejudice to the development of the company, and that the plaintiff was shunned, ridiculed and brought into contempt and its possessory rights with respect to the demised premises and its quiet enjoyment thereof were and are being disturbed. In so far as this relates to the alleged slander of title it was confined in the original 8, no objection is taken to it, but in so far as it purports to relate to a claim that was made for damages for defamation, objection is taken by the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial