Richard Patrick Charles v Troy Leacock
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2022 HC 144 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV2016-02134 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
the Honourable Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed
Claim No. CV2016-02134
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Mr. Yaseen Ahmed instructed by Ms. Chantelle Le Gall for the Claimant
Mr. Saeed Trotter instructed by the firm of Scoon's for the Defendant
The facts of this case have been detailed in the Decision of this Court on the Claimant's Application for Summary Judgment. The Decision of the Court was given on 5 December 2017.
In that Decision the Court granted summary judgment to the Claimant in relation to relief 1 and relief 4 of the claim form and statement of case.
The remaining reliefs to be dealt with in the instant Claim are:
“2. A declaration that the Defendant holds the said Motor Vehicle Registration Number TCJ 4156 on trust for the Claimant.
3. Damages for breach of trust.
5. Costs.
6. Interest.
7. Any further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.”
The Defendant's counterclaim seeks:
“(a) An order that the Claimant do pay to the Defendant the sum of $15,000.00.
(b) Damages for breach of contract.
(c) Interest pursuant to section 25 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Ch. 41:01.
(d) Costs.
(e) Such further and or other relief as this Honourable Court may think just in the circumstances.”
The issues to be determined are as follows:
-
(i) Did the Defendant hold the subject vehicle on trust for the Claimant? If so, did he breach that trust?
-
(ii) If the answers to issue (i) are in the affirmative, is the Claimant entitled to damages for loss of use, and if so, how much? and
-
(iii) Was it a term of the contract between the parties that upon the loan being paid off, the Claimant would pay to the Defendant $15,000.00 as compensation?
The Claimant filed a witness statement and was his sole witness. The Defendant filed a witness statement of his own, as well as, a witness statement of Angela Leacock. Pursuant to Part 29.11 (1) (e) of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 (as amended) (“the CPR”) the witness statement of Angela Leacock was, by agreement of the parties, tendered into evidence as her evidence-in-chief without her being called to the witness stand. Consequently, there was no cross-examination of this witness.
The Claimant's evidence is that in March 2012, he attempted to obtain insurance for the vehicle but was unable to do so as his name was not on the said vehicle. On 13 February 2013, when he visited Trinidad, he visited Scotiabank to pay off the loan and found out that $41,708.00 was outstanding. He made arrangements and paid off the loan by visiting Royal Bank on the said date where he obtained a bank draft in the exact amount. He returned to Scotiabank and paid off the loan on the same date.
Shortly after paying off the loan, in or about February 2013 he called the Defendant and made arrangements to meet with him for about 8:00am at the licensing office in San Fernando to transfer the legal ownership of the vehicle into his name and which the Defendant agreed to do. The Claimant and his friend Tyrone waited until around 3:00pm at the licensing office but the Defendant never showed up.
The Claimant met the Defendant the same evening and they spoke on the street in front of the Recreation Centre in Princes Town. He asked the Defendant to transfer the legal title to the vehicle as he had fully paid off the loan. Upon making the request the Defendant told him that he owed him compensation (the amount of which he did not specify) for having the loan taken out in his name. This was the first time that the Defendant ever raised the issue of him being entitled to compensation from the Claimant for having the loan taken out in his name.
Before the Claimant returned to New York, he again contacted the Defendant to discuss transferring the ownership of the vehicle as well as the new issue of compensation.
The Claimant retained attorneys to handle the issue of the transfer and a pre-action protocol letter was sent to the Defendant on 8 March 2013. He was referred to another attorney in May 2013, and gave instructions to obtain a court order for the transfer but this was not fruitful despite his attempts with the attorney up until 2015. He then retained his present attorneys and a pre-action letter was sent to the Defendant on 24 May 2016, requesting amongst other things, that he transfer the legal title. These proceedings were then commenced on 5 December 2017.
The Claimant stated that at the time of entering into the agreement for the establishment of the landscaping business, he carried out his own investigations as to the equipment necessary to use in the business and the rates, which were charged at that time by individuals involved in the landscaping business.
He spoke to Jean Vialva who worked in landscaping. He also spoke to his friend, Tyrone's brother-in-law, Neville Cooper, who had been in landscaping for over ten years and who was the recipient of government contracts under the Community Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP) as to the fees that he charged to provide various landscaping services.
From his investigations he knows that in or about 2008 the cost for cutting of grass alone on a single property was between $100.00 to $150.00 depending on the height of the grass and the size of the property. In addition, from his investigations, he knows the cost of cutting grass, weeding lawns, raking-up leaves and general cleaning of properties through the use of a pressure washer was between $150.00 to $200.00 depending on the size of the property and the number of services provided.
At the start of the landscaping business with the Defendant, these services would have been offered in Princes Town as well as Buen Intento, San Fernando and St. Madeleine.
Therefore, assuming that through the use of the said vehicle, two jobs would have been completed per day at a cost of $100.00 per job, the gross monthly income which would have been generated by the landscaping business partly through the use of the vehicle would have amounted to $2000.00. In addition, the expenses for fuel would have amounted to an average of $120.00 per week ($480.00 per month).
However, due to the Defendant's failure to transfer the said vehicle to him after he repaid the loan in 2013, he was unable to use the said vehicle at all. As a result, he lost $50.00 per day for every day that he did not have use of the said vehicle.
Having had a discussion about his liability in the event the Claimant could no longer pay the loan, and sensing the Defendant's hesitation, the Claimant then and there stated that “I didn't have to worry and that he would take care of me.” The Claimant stated that when the loan was paid in full he would give him $15,000.00 for all his troubles. It is on this basis he agreed to go to Scotiabank to request a loan in his name for the purchase of the vehicle.
After obtaining the loan, and before the Claimant left the country, he thanked the Defendant for his help and promised to “take care of me” which he of course meant a reiteration of his promise to pay him $15,000.00.
If the Claimant had requested an insurance renewal in his (the Claimant's) name or in Tyrone Bowrin's name, he would have agreed. While he wanted the money for the transfer, he never intended to prevent the Claimant from using the vehicle.
The Claimant never informed him of his plans to use the vehicle or for further renewals of the insurance. After their last discussion, where he demanded the transfer of the vehicle, the Defendant never heard from the Claimant until the loan was paid in full.
When the Claimant finished paying the loan, he did request that the Defendant transfer the vehicle in the Claimant's name. However, the Defendant refused because the Claimant was pretending that he never promised to pay him the $15,000.00 in accordance with their agreement.
The Defendant felt that given the circumstances it was only fair and reasonable that he be paid the $15,000.00. Firstly, he was reluctant to take the loan in his name because he was in fear of the risk of incurring liability, and he did in fact incur such liability, because during the currency of the loan he could not apply for another loan. He inquired on the ability to acquire a next loan. On occasions when the Claimant was late with payment, money would be deducted from the Defendant's account and he simply was not in a position to take the risk of paying two loans.
It was based on the Claimant's promise to pay $15,000.00 to the Defendant that he wholeheartedly acceded to the Claimant's request to take the loan in his name and purchase the vehicle in his name or to take time off to carry him around to purchase the vehicle and obtain the loan and assist him with collecting equipment for setting up the business and later on assisting his girlfriend.
The Claimant indicated that he would approach the Defendant to obtain the loan in his name. The Claimant indicated that he would “ give Troy something” for his assistance. She was not party to the discussions the parties had but she observed the Defendant agreed to assist the Claimant. The Defendant later indicated to her that the Claimant had promised to give him some money to purchase the vehicle in his name.
With respect to the purported existence of the term for the payment of $15,000.00 to the Defendant, the Claimant submitted that the cross-examination of the Claimant failed to establish the existence of such a term. His evidence was in line with his pleaded case and evidence-in-chief.
It was the Defendant's case that one...
To continue reading
Request your trial