Charon v Mohammed

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Rajnauth-Lee, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 November 2009
• Neutral Citation: TT 2009 HC 284
• Docket Number: CV No. 683 of 2008
• Date: 12 November 2009

Charon

and

Mohammed

Rajnauth-Lee, J.

CV No. 683 of 2008

High Court

Civil practice and procedure - Non-compliance with Order — Application for relief from sanction.

Appearances:

Miss Tara Lutchman for the claimant.

Miss Kandace Bharath for the defendant.

THE PROCEEDINGS

Rajnauth-Lee, J.

1 The action was commenced by Claim Form filed on the 26th February, 2008 whereby the claimant claimed inter alia damages for breach of contract pursuant to an oral agreement entered into by the claimant and the defendant for the sale of motor vehicle PCB 3671 (“the said motor vehicle”) to the claimant for the price of $90,000.00. The claimant claimed further or in the alternative damages for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation made on the 5th December, 2007 by the defendant to the claimant thereby inducing the claimant to purchase the said motor vehicle.

2 By her Statement of Case, the claimant complained inter alia that during oral negotiations the defendant represented to her that:

• (a) Everything was working well with the said vehicle; and

• (b) The claimant was buying a very good vehicle.

According to the Statement of Case (paragraph 5), acting in reliance on the above representations the claimant did not take a mechanic to inspect the said vehicle and agreed to purchase it from the defendant for the price of $90,000. in or about November, 2007.

3 According to the Statement of Case, since the Eastern Credit Union, to which the claimant had applied for a loan, required a recent satisfactory valuation report and/or appraisal of the said vehicle, the defendant supplied the claimant with an inspection report/appraisal dated the 10th August, 2007 supplied by Motor Critic Limited which categorised the said vehicle as having undergone “normal wear” and graded it as “B+” (para.11). The claimant further alleged that soon after she took possession of the said vehicle the said vehicle began malfunctioning and was in need of substantial repairs. She claimed not to have been able to drive the said vehicle since the 14th December, 2007.

4 By his Defence the defendant denied the claimant's claim alleging that at the time that he informed the claimant that the said vehicle was in good working condition he told her that she should bring her mechanic to check it out, but that she did not do so. The defendant alleged that he never expressly and/or impliedly informed the claimant that the said vehicle was free from defects as the said vehicle was a second hand vehicle and there was always the possibility of defects occurring. The claimant filed a Reply on the 13th June, 2008.

5 By Notice of Application filed on the 2nd December, 2008 the claimant sought permission to amend her Statement of Case on the grounds inter alia that since the filing of the Statement of Case certain repairs were undertaken to the said vehicle and other defective parts were discovered and in need of replacement. Permission was granted by the Court. The Amended Statement of Case was filed on the 18th February, 2009. The defendant filed a Re-Amended Defence on the 26th March, 2009.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6 At a Case Manangement Conference on the 22nd May, 2009, the Court ordered as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that

1

The claimant do file an Agreed Bundle of Documents on or before 24th day of July 2009; 2. The Parties do file Witness Statements of all Witnesses on or before the 29th September, 2009; 3. The Witness Statements do stand as Evidence in Chief; 4. Witnesses to be present at the Trial for cross examination. A pre-trail review was fixed for the 23rd October, 2009.

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

7 On the 2nd October, 2009 the claimant filed a Notice of Application for the following relief:

1

That the claimant be granted relief from sanctions. 2. That the time for compliance with the directions given on the 22nd May, 2009 be extended. 3. That the time for the filing and serving of the Witness Statement of Neil Prescod be extended to 2nd October, 2009.

4 Such further and/or other reliefs.

8 By notice filed on the 5th October, 2009, the claimant withdrew the 2nd October application and on the said 5th October, 2009, the claimant filed another Notice of Application seeking the same relief. The only difference between the two (2) applications was that the proposed witness statement of Neil Prescod was not exhibited to the first application.

9 At the pre-trial review, attorney for the defendant objected to the said application. The Court heard the application and dismissed it.

10 The grounds of the application filed on the 5th October, 2009 were as follows:

1

...