Tewari v Ishmael

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Pemberton, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: TT 2007 HC 157
• Docket Number: HCA 631 of 2004; CV 01895 of 2006
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 17 July 2007

High Court

Pemberton, J.

HCA 631 of 2004; CV 01895 of 2006

Tewari

and

Ishmael

Appearances:

For the plaintiff: Mr. R. Dowlath holding for Mr. V. Maharaj.

For the defendant: Ms. M. Blaize.

Civil practice and procedure - Costs — Action in trespass — Claim was not specific — No value ascribed to claim — Claimant to provide valuation of disputed area — Decision reserved.

Pemberton, J.

1 At the Case Management Conference, I raised the issue of costs and ordered the parties to file submissions hoping that Counsel would have got together to discuss the matter. This was not to be. The defendant filed its written submissions in accordance with the Order. The claimant did not.

2 In this case, the claimant filed for a declaration of trespass against the defendant but does not state the area of the trespass or the value of the lands trespassed upon; possession of the disputed area, damages and costs.

3 As I said there was no meeting of minds of claimant and defendant so that Costs could not be agreed. There was no figure claimed on the Claim Form so that it is up to the court to assess the value of the claim. I do not think that the case falls under Part 67.5 (2) (b) (iii) since the claim for damages is for a monetary sum.

4 What does Part 67.5 state?

67.5

(2) In determining the value of the claim (a) in the case of the claimant – the amount agreed or ordered to be paid; (b) in the case of the defendant – (i) amount claimed by claimant on Claim Form or; (ii) if the claim is for damages and the claim does not specify the amount, such sum as agreed between the parties or a sum stipulated by the court as a value to the claim; (iii) if the claim is not for a monetary sum - $50,000.00 unless the court makes an order under 67.6 (i) (a).

5 VALUE OF THE CLAIM

As I said, we do not know the value of the disputed portion, or the basis for the assessment of damages for trespass.

In the circumstances, a proper amount to be ascribed as the value of the claim cannot be effected in the absence of this information.

ORDER:

That the claimant do provide a valuation from a qualified valuer of the disputed area to the defendant and file a copy in court on or before 22nd August 2007; 2. Further decision on costs reserved;

1 Further Case Management Conference to take place on 30th November 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in POS 17 at which trial directions to be given Trial Window February 2008.

Charmaine Pemberton

High Court Judge

...