TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE H.C.A....

1

of 24

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE H.C.A. No. 145 of 2001

BETWEEN

HUBERT JOB Plaintiff

AND

MAUD BABB SKERRET MC DONALD GREENE Defendants

Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Ventour Appearances: Mr. C. Pope for the Plaintiff Mrs. D. Gouveia for the 2nd Defendant The 1st Defendant was not served with the proceedings

DECISION On September 26, 2001 the Plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons seeking against

the Defendants, inter alia, damages for breach of the covenant of quiet

enjoyment with respect to the tenancy of premises situate at No. 40 Wilson

Street, Scarborough, Tobago. The Statement of Claim filed on 18th October,

2001 alleges that the written tenancy agreement made between the Plaintiff on

the one hand and the 1st named Defendant on the other contained an implied

term that the Plaintiff would peaceably hold, use and occupy the said premises

without molestation from the 1st named Defendant.

2

of 24

The Plaintiff further alleges that in breach of the said implied term of the tenancy

the Defendants, their servants and/or agents, cut off the water and electricity

supply to the said premises, blocked the entrance leading to the said remises

and served the Plaintiff with an illegal notice to quit the said premises and

initiated ejectment proceedings in the Scarborough Magistrate Court against the

Plaintiff.

The 1st named Defendant was never served with the Writ of Summons and the

Statement of Claim. On 6th June, 2002 an appearance was nevertheless entered

on behalf of both Defendants. No defence having been filed by the Defendants,

an application was made by the Plaintiff, by Notice of Motion filed on 7th October,

2002, for judgment in default.

On the hearing of the Motion leave was given to the Plaintiff to withdraw the said

Motion. In spite of the fact that no defence had been filed by the Defendants a

summons for direction was issued by the Plaintiff and heard by the Assistant

Registrar on 27th November, 2003. It is difficult to understand why the Summons

was entertained when in fact the records confirmed that pleadings were not

closed in accordance with Order 25 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless the matter came before this Court for trial on 15th April, 2005 and

because the Court was otherwise engaged, hearing was adjourned to 13th June,

3

of 24

2005 for the trial to begin. On the adjourned date, Counsel for the 2nd Defendant

indicated to the Court that the 1st Defendant was never served with the

proceedings (I took that to mean that the appearance entered on her behalf as

indicated earlier was an error) and, as a consequence, the Plaintiff could not

proceed against her. So far as the 2nd named Defendant was concerned

Counsel apologised for the failure to file the defence within the time provided by

the Rules of the Supreme Court and indicated that the defence was ready and

sought leave to file same. There was some opposition to the application, but in

the interest of justice, the Court ordered that the defence be filed on or before 12

noon on 13th June, 2005. The trial was then adjourned to 24th June, 2005.

The defence of the 2nd named Defendant was in fact filed on 13th June, 2005. In

his defence, the 2nd Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff was a monthly tenant

He also admitted the implied term of the tenancy as pleaded by the Plaintiff. This

Defendant however denied that he cut off the water supply or the electricity

supply to the said premises. He further alleges that the Plaintiff was kept

appraised of all the repairs that was necessary to the premises by written

communication and that at no time did he (the 2nd Defendant) cause the entrance

of the said premises to be blocked by the rocks as alleged.

The Plaintiff’s evidence

On 24th June, 2005 the trial began as directed. The only witness called for the

Plaintiff was the Plaintiff himself. Mr. Job testified that on or around October 15,

4

of 24

1993 he orally entered into an agreement with the 1st named Defendant for the

rental of the downstairs apartment of the premises situate at No.40 Wilson

Street, Scarborough, Tobago. After one year the tenancy was renewed in

writing for a further year and similar renewals continued until 15th April, 1999

when the tenancy was renewed for a period of two years, that is, until 15th April,

2001.

The Plaintiff further testified that on Friday 24, 2000 he received a notice issued

by the 2nd named Defendant that he (the Plaintiff) quit the said premises. The

Plaintiff testified that he subsequently learnt that on March 3, 2000 the 2nd

Defendant had been given a Power of Attorney to act on behalf of the 1st

Defendant. The Notice to Quit demanded that the Plaintiff vacate the premises

within three (3) months from the date of service of the said notice. Mr. Job

further testified that he did not vacate the premises as requested, because he

had a written agreement authorising him to remain in possession until 15th April,

2001.

Following the expiration of the three (3) months, the 2nd Defendant issued an

eviction summons for the Plaintiff to appear before the Magistrate’s Court. He

appeared on 8th August, 2000 when the 2nd Defendant indicated to the Presiding

Magistrate that he needed time to secure the services of a lawyer and the matter

was adjourned to 20th September, 2000 and on that day, hearing was further

5

of 24

adjourned to September 28, 2000 on which date, the 2nd Defendant failed to

appear and the matter was dismissed by the Magistrate.

This witness also testified that on 1st August, 2000, that is, prior to receiving the

eviction summons, the 2nd Defendant caused the water supply to the apartment

to be disconnected. As a consequence, he had to walk to the public standpipe to

get water for his family’s use. He said that that state of affairs continued until 7th

September, 2000.

Further, on or about 6th August, 2000 at about 4:45 a.m. and without warning, the

Plaintiff said that there was an interruption in the electricity supply. He recalled

seeing a gentleman by the name of Junior Marcelle, whom he knew worked for

the 2nd Defendant, standing on the staircase directly in front of the splitter box.

He said he immediately contacted the 2nd Defendant’s sister one Urla Greene

who was able to secure the reconnection of the electricity supply by 6:15 a.m.

that very morning. The Plaintiff further testified that on 6th September, 2000 the

Trinidad and Tobago Electricity formerly disconnected the entire supply of

electricity to the apartment.

Mr. Job tells the Court that his problems did not end there because sometime in

August 2000 the 2nd Defendant caused to be deposited three (3) truck loads of

rotten rocks in the walkway blocking his access to and from the apartment. He

6

of 24

said the rocks remained in the walkway up until the end of November 2000, when

he vacated the said premises.

This witness recalled that on or about 25th June, 2000 the landlady (the 1st

named Defendant) was taken away from the premises, leaving the upstairs

apartment vacant. In September of the same year, the 2nd Defendant began

repair works on the upper floor of the apartment. The noise emanating from the

pounding of the upper flooring during the day affected the Plaintiff considerably to

the extent that he could not sleep after returning home from work. With no

running water in the apartment, no electricity, access to and from the apartment

obstructed and the continuous noise resulting from the repair work being

undertaken by the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff testified that he was forced to send

his entire family to the USA on the 23rd September, 2000. Mr. Job further

testified that he continued to endure the inconveniences until he decided to

vacate the premises in November 2000 and caused his Attorney at Law to initiate

legal proceedings against the Defendants for damages for breach of contract.

The Defendant’s evidence

Three witness were called on behalf of the defence. The 1st witness was the 2nd

Defendant himself. Mr. Greene testified that he was given a Power of Attorney

by the 1st named Defendant on 3rd March, 2000 to look after her affairs. As a

consequence, he said that on or about 24th October, 2000 he served the Plaintiff

with Notice to Quit the premises. This witness said that he knew that the Plaintiff

7

of 24

had entered into a written tenancy agreement with his Aunt (the 1st named

Defendant herein) and that the tenancy was to continue until the 15th April, 2001.

Notwithstanding, he nevertheless, issued the notice to quit because he wanted

the Plaintiff to vacate the said premises.

Under cross-examination he denied that he cut the water supply or disconnected

the water supply to the premises. He testified that the Plaintiff had complained to

the landlady about the water leaking into his apartment from the upper floor and

that he also complained that the lights in his apartment was flickering

intermittently. As a result, Mr. Greene said that he made every effort to rectify

those problems. Further, Mr. Greene admitted depositing four (4) truck load of

rocks in the walkway of the premises for the specific purpose of levelling the area

to prevent the water from the roadway running onto the premises.

Mr. Greene also testified that he undertook repair work to the flooring of the

upstairs apartment but before doing so he did inform the Plaintiff in writing.

Under cross-examination Mr. Greene acknowledged that the repair work would

have affected the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the said premises.

The evidence of the 2nd Defendant’s second witness, Urla Greene (she is the

sister of the 2nd Defendant) supported that of the 2nd named Defendant in many

respects.

8

of 24

The final witness for the defence was Mr. Elrod Baynes, a retired Electrical

Inspector II of the Tobago House of Assembly. Mr. Baynes testified that

sometime in the year 2000 an application was made for the inspection of the

electrical installation of the premises described as No. 40 Wilson Street,

Scarborough. This witness said that he inspected the installation of both the

upstairs and downstairs apartment and found some major defects which he listed

and reported to the Applicant. Mr. Baynes said that the Applicant was given a

certain amount of time to have the defects corrected, failing which, he (Mr.

Baynes) had to provide all the necessary information to the Trinidad and Tobago

Electricity Commission (T&TEC) and recommend that the electrical supply to the

premises be disconnected. The witness testified that in the particular case the

defects were not corrected within the given time and he advised T & TEC

accordingly. The electricity supply was disconnected on the 9th day of

September, 2000.

The Nature to Quit

In assessing the evidence before the Court, I first wish to deal with the Notice to

Quit served on the Plaintiff in the month of March 2000. On 3rd March, 2000 Mr.

Greene had received the Power of Attorney from his Aunt, the 1st named

Defendant herein, and he wasted no time in issuing the Notice to Quit for the

Plaintiff and his family to vacate the said premises. Only the year before, the

landlady had, in writing, extended the tenancy of the Plaintiff to 15th April, 2001

9

of 24

and according to the evidence of Mr. Greene, he was aware of that extension.

On what basis therefore, did Mr. Greene issue the Notice to Quit?

Not unexpectedly, the three month period given to the Plaintiff to vacate the

premises expired and not having acceded to Mr. Greene’s request, the latter

caused to be issued an eviction summons for the Plaintiff to appear before the

Scarborough Magistrate’s Court. The evidence disclosed that on the third

hearing the 2nd Defendant failed to appear and the Presiding Magistrate

dismissed the summons. Indeed, it would have been interesting to know on what

basis Mr. Greene was seeking to have the Plaintiff evicted from the premises in

light of the existence of a written contract the Plaintiff had with the landlady

allowing him to lawfully occupy the said premises until 15th April, 2001. No

evidence was adduced by the 2nd Defendant that the Plaintiff had committed any

breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The water supply is disconnected

The evidence from the Defendant is that the Plaintiff complained to his sister (the

said Urla Greene) and his Aunt, the 1st named Defendant herein, about water

dripping from upstairs into his apartment downstairs. The Plaintiff however,

denied that he made any such complaint. Whether or not there was such a

complaint, if water is entering the Plaintiff’s apartment, from some leaking pipe

line from the upper floor it is the landlady’s responsibility to ensure that a plumber

is called in to remedy the problem. The 2nd Defendant did call in a plumber who

10

of 24

prepared and submitted a report as to the cost of remedying the problem. But

there was no evidence that the problem was rectified.

During his examination in chief the 2nd Defendant said that “for some reason the

water from upstairs was cut off by persons unknown”. He also said that the

plumber visited the Plaintiff’s apartment “to check to see where the water was

coming through in order to ascertain the total cost to repair the work.” The

Plaintiff denied that the plumber visited the downstairs department. I must admit

that the 2nd Defendant’s testimony on this issue lacks credibility. If, according to

the evidence of the 2nd Defendant the plumber had determined what the problem

was after his examination of the upstairs apartment why would he need to visit

the downstairs apartment? The 2nd Defendant had in his possession a report of

the cost of remedying the plumbing problem as it affected the upstairs apartment.

Why was the problem not attended to by the 2nd Defendant? Whether the water

was cut or the main pipe line to the premises was capped, the question that the

2nd Defendant failed to address was why was the Plaintiff and his family allowed

to remain without pipe borne water in their apartment from 1st August to 7th

September, 2000?

During cross-examination the Plaintiff said that on 1st August, 2000 the 2nd

Defendant brought two plumbers to the premises. He testified that, “on the

southern side of the kitchen the water was capped under the watchful eyes of Mr.

Greene. I have photographs of them”. I believe the testimony of the Plaintiff that

11

of 24

the water supply to the premises was intentionally capped or disconnected by the

servants and/or agents of the 2nd Defendant.

The electricity supply

The evidence of the 2nd Defendant is that the tenant complained about the

flickering lights and that once the complaint was brought to his attention, he

immediately took steps to deal with it. Unfortunately the witness did not detail

what those steps were during his examination in chief. Neither did Counsel for

the Plaintiff seek to elicit what those steps were during cross examination of the

witness. It appears however, that an application was made to the relevant

authority for an inspection of the electrical installation of the premises. Why was

such an application made on the basis of an alleged complaint by the Plaintiff

that the lights in his apartment was flickering? The Plaintiff however, denied that

he made any such complaint. In addition, there was no evidence of any

complaint of electrical problem in the upstairs apartment.

According to the evidence of the Electrical Inspector II of the Tobago House of

Assembly (Mr. Baynes), he visited the premises and carried out a thorough

investigation of the installation and found several major defects which he

documented and submitted to the Applicant. Mr. Baynes did testify that the

Applicant was given a certain amount of time to correct the defects. It is indeed

surprising that Mr. Baynes could not recall during his cross-examination how

12

of 24

much time the Applicant was given to correct the defects before approval of the

installation could be secured.

Mr. Baynes further testified that the defects were not remedied within the time

given and, as a result, he communicated with officials of the Trinidad and Tobago

Electricity Commission listing the name and address of the owner of the

premises, directing that the installation be disconnected. Disconnection was, in

fact, effected on 9th September, 2000.

On this particular issue two questions engaged the Court’s attention. The first is

why, given the nature of the alleged complaint, was an electrician not engaged to

remedy the problem of a flickering light. In other words why was it necessary to

apply to the relevant authority for an inspection of the electrical installation of the

premises? And more importantly, why were the defects identified by the

Inspector not remedied within the specific time allowed? It appears that

absolutely no attempt was made by the Applicant to remedy the defects identified

by the Inspector or to seek an extension of time to carry out the remedial work.

In the absence of this evidence, this Court can only assume that it was the 2nd

Defendant’s intention to have the electricity supply to the premises officially

disconnected with the ultimate goal of having the tenant vacate the said

premises. As indicated earlier, officials from the Trinidad and Tobago Electrical

Commission did, in fact, disconnect the electricity supply to the premises on

September 9, 2000.

13

of 24

Truckload of rocks placed in the walkway

The 2nd Defendant admitted to depositing four (4) truckload of rocks sometime

during the month of August 2000 at the front of the premises for the specific

purpose of levelling a depressed area of the walkway. The Plaintiff testified that

the rocks obstructed his access and that of his family to and from the premises.

The 2nd Defendant denied that the Plaintiff was affected in any way from gaining

access to the premises.

While it is true that the pleaded case for the defence on this issue is that bags of

sand and rock were deposited against the boundary fence of the premises, Urla

Greene, the sister of the 2nd Defendant did testify that the rocks were placed at

the side of the fence and did not in any way block the passage way. But cross-

examination of the 2nd Defendant seem to have painted a different picture.

Q: Was it placed on the grassy roadway.

W: No.

Q: Where was it placed.

W: On the depression of the roadway.

Q: Was it on the entrance?

W: No.

Q: Was it on Wilson Road?

W: No.

Q: On the walkway?

14

of 24

W: Yes.

Q: Used by your Aunt and any other person coming to the premises.

W: Yes.

Q: It would necessarily obstruct access to the premises?

W: No.

Q: Which other access?

W: It was on the side, it would not completely block the access.

These questions and answers indicated to this Court that though not complete,

there would have been some obstruction to and from the premises. The walkway

which the 2nd Defendant said was about 5 to 6 feet wide may not have been

completely blocked by the rocks deposited by the 2nd Defendant. What appears

to be objectionable about the deposit of those rocks, is the fact that the Plaintiff

was not informed of the possible inconvenience that may and did in fact result

from the partial obstruction of the access road. I again note the evidence in this

regard:

Q: Job and his family would have been inconvenienced by the obstruction

placed on the roadway.

W: Temporarily, yes.

Q: Yet you went on without advising him of it.

A: I can’t remember if I did.

15

of 24

This witness did not see it fit and proper to inform the tenant of his intention to

deposit the rocks where he did, even though he knew of the possible

inconvenience the tenant and his family would have suffered, albeit, temporarily.

Repairs to the premises

Under cross-examination the 2nd Defendant said that he had formed an intention

to repair the building as far back as February 1998 before the 1st Defendant had

served the Plaintiff with a Notice to Quit the said premises. In the meanwhile,

however the landlady continued to renew the Plaintiff’s tenancy of the Apartment.

In fact, the 2nd Defendant testified that he was aware and had seen the tenancy

agreement made between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant in which the

tenancy was extended from April 1999 to April 2001. He said that sometime in

2000 he had notified the Plaintiff in writing of his intention to commence repair

work to the building which he said was in a state of disrepair. Repair works to

the flooring of the upstairs apartment began in September 2000 and the noise

from the workmen was so intense that the Plaintiff said he could not sleep after

working the nightshift, that is, from midnight to 8 o’clock the following morning.

The Plaintiff was employed as an Estate Constable with the Tobago House of

Assembly.

The evidence is that the building was in a state of disrepair and, no doubt, the 1st

Defendant would have been aware of the condition of the premises before

16

of 24

extending the Plaintiff’s tenancy agreement to April 2001. The 2nd Defendant

testified that he had formed the intention to effect repairs to the building as far

back as February 1998. Why then did he choose to undertake the repairs some

six (6) months before the expiration of the term of the tenancy. No explanation

was given to this Court by the 2nd Defendant as to why he was not prepared to

honour the terms of the Plaintiff’s tenancy agreement, in particular, the implied

term of quiet enjoyment.

As a result of all the inconveniences, the Plaintiff said that he was forced to send

his entire family to the USA on 23rd September, 2000 while he continued to

endure the hardships which had been created by the 2nd Defendant. He too,

ultimately vacated the said premises in November 2000 some six months before

the end of the tenancy agreement.

The Plaintiff did testify that prior to the end of March 2000 his occupation of the

premises was without any major interruption. Immediately after the 2nd

Defendant was given a Power of Attorney by his Aunt, the landlady, the Plaintiff’s

problems began. He first had to deal with the Notice to Quit and thereafter the

eviction summons served on him by the 2nd Defendant. This occurred even

though his occupation of the premises was lawful and there was no allegation of

any breach of the tenancy agreement made against the Plaintiff. Next the supply

of pipe borne water to the apartment was disconnected and sometime thereafter

four (4) truckload of rocks were placed in the walkway partially obstructing his

17

of 24

free access too and from the premises. The electricity supply was then

disconnected by the Electricity Commission as a direct result of certain actions

taken by the 2nd Defendant. Finally, the Plaintiff had to endure the incessant

noise emanating from the repair works undertaken by the 2nd Defendant in the

month of September 2000. Despite the actions of the 2nd Defendant the Plaintiff

continued to pay the monthly rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy

agreement.

In the circumstances, I have found on the evidence, that the action and/or

conduct of the 2nd Defendant amounted to a breach of the term of quiet

enjoyment to which the Plaintiff was entitled by virtue of his tenancy agreement.

The Law

There is no dispute that there exists an implied term in the tenancy agreement

made between the Plaintiff on the one hand and the 1st Defendant on the other,

to the effect that the Plaintiff would peaceably hold, use and occupy the premises

without disturbance and/or molestation from the 1st Defendant or by any person

claiming through or under her. On the pleadings the 2nd Defendant has accepted

the existence of such a term in the agreement. Any interference by the landlady

and her servants and/or agents with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the said

premises could therefore amount to a breach of contract.

18

of 24

In the case of Kenny –vs- Preen (1963) 1 QB 499 at page 511 Pearson, L.J.

explains the principle this way:

“The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not

an absolute covenant protecting the tenant against

eviction or interference by anybody, but is a

qualified covenant protecting the tenant against

interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful

enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or

persons claiming through or under the landlord.

The basis of it is that the landlord by let

confers on the tenant the right of possession

during the term and impliedly promises not to

interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of

the right of possession during the term.”

In the case of Budd-Scott –vs- Daniel (1902) 2 KB 351 at page 356, Lord

Alverstone, C.J. puts it this way:

“Therefore, unless there is some special meaning

attached to the word “demised” the good sense of

the thing would seem to be that, upon an agreement

to let, a covenant or contract was to be implied

that the landlord and those claiming under him

would not disturb the possession of the tenant.”

19

of 24

On the evidence before this Court, I have found that the Plaintiff’s quiet

enjoyment of the premises was interfered with by the conduct and/or actions of

the 2nd Defendant who, by the authority conferred upon him by the Power of

Attorney, was acting for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant. It was only after

such authority was conferred upon him that the 2nd Defendant :

(i) instituted ejectment proceedings against the Plaintiff

in July 2000 even though the Plaintiff’s tenancy

agreement with the 1st Defendant was due to expire

in April 2001 and there was no evidence of any

breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement by the

tenant;

(ii) caused the water supply to the premises to be

capped or disconnected for a period of time;

(iii) caused the electricity supply to the premises to

be disconnected on 9th September, 2000;

(iv) caused four (4) truckload of rocks to be

deposited in the front of the premises partially

obstructing the Plaintiff’s free use of the

walkway to the said premises;

(v) commenced repair work to the upstairs

apartment giving rise to considerable

inconvenience to the Plaintiff and his family.

20

of 24

On the evidence before the Court I am satisfied that very soon after the 2nd

Defendant obtained the Power of Attorney from his Aunt, the 1st Defendant

herein, he (the 2nd Defendant) immediately set about to have the Plaintiff and his

family vacate the said premises. His relationship with the Plaintiff can only be

described as one of harassment. He was determined to have the Plaintiff vacate

the said premises even though he knew according to his testimony, that the

Plaintiff’s tenancy agreement was due to expire in April 2001.

As a result of the conduct of the 2nd Defendant the Plaintiff had to vacate the

premises in November 2000, some six months before the expiration of the term

of the tenancy agreement.

Damages:

No special damages have been claimed by the Plaintiff. No evidence was led to

show what expenses he incurred, if any, in having to vacate the said premises or

what rent he had to pay to secure alternative accommodation, after vacating the

premises in November, 2000, some six months before the expiration of his

tenancy agreement.

The Plaintiff claims however, inter alia, a declaration that the Notice served on

the Plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant on the 24th day of March, 2000 was illegal and

of no effect. I do not think that such a declaration can be properly granted to the

Plaintiff having regard to the circumstances. The Court has the power to find that

21

of 24

the said Notice had no effect, but even such a finding I hold to be unnecessary in

the circumstances.

The Plaintiff also claims damages on the footing of exemplary or aggravated

damages for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment of the said premises. I

consider the law in this area to be quite clear. Exemplary or aggravated

damages are never allowed in the Courts for breach of contract. In the case of

Kenny –vs- Preen (supra) the only wrongful act alleged by the Plaintiff was a

breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, that is, a breach of contract. The

Court of Appeal found that as the claim was only in contract and not in tort,

punitive or exemplary damages could not properly be awarded.

In the case of Perera –v- Vandiyar [1953] 1 AER 1109 the Landlord of a flat had

cut off the supply of gas and electricity to the flat with the object of inducing the

statutory tenant to leave. As a result the tenant was forced to move out of the flat

and to live elsewhere. The tenant brought an action against the Landlord for

damages for breach of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment and for eviction.

The trial judge awarded the tenant a total of ₤53.105 in damages comprising the

sum of ₤25 for the inconvenience he suffered; another ₤25 as punitive damages

having regard to the conduct of the Landlord and the sum of ₤3 10s as special

damages. No damages were awarded for any injury or inconvenience his wife

and child may have suffered or in respect of any mental distress he may have felt

about his wife and child.

22

of 24

On appeal by the Landlord the Court of Appeal found that as the Landlord’s

action did not constitute an interference with any part of the demised premises, it

could not be regarded as a trespass. The tenant was therefore entitled to

damages merely for the breach of covenant and in respect of special damage

which was proved, but he was not entitled to an additional sum as punitive on the

basis that the Landlord had committed a tort.

Commenting on the decision of Perera –v- Vandiyar (supra) Lord Denning MR.

in the more recent case of Mc Call –v- Abelesf [1976] 1 AER 727 at page 731

said:

“So, if the facts in Perera –v- Vandiyar were to occur

again today, the Plaintiff would recover not only the ₤25

for his own inconvenience, but also the additional ₤25

for the injury and inconvenience which his wife and child

suffered and the metal distress which he and they suffered.

Not as damages for tort, but as damages for breach of

contract.”

23

of 24

In 1989 in the case of Alexander –v- Clarke H.C.A. No.1734 of 1986 Blackman,

J. awarded the tenant the sum of $1000.00 as damages for breach of the

covenant of quiet enjoyment.

There is little doubt in my mind that because of the conduct of the 2nd Defendant

the Plaintiff and his family suffered considerable inconvenience and of course

mental distress particularly having regard to the fact that they occupied the

premises pursuant to a lawful contract made between the Plaintiff and the 1st

Defendant. In the case of Jarvis –v- Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] 1 AER 71 the

Court of Appeal found that in a proper case damages for mental distress could

be recovered in an action for breach of contract. Also in the case of Jackson –v-

Horizon Holidays Ltd. [1975] 3 AER 92 the Court of Appeal approved of the

decision in Jarvis –v- Swans Tours case and held further that not only could

damages be awarded to the Plaintiff for the discomfort, vexation and

disappointment which the Plaintiff himself suffered by reason of the Defendant’s

breach of contract, but also for the discomfort, vexation and disappointment

suffered by his wife and children.

24

of 24

In the circumstances I consider an award of $5000.00 as adequate

compensation for the Plaintiff, representing damages for breach of the implied

term of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The Defendant will also pay the

Plaintiff’s cost of the action certified fit for Counsel.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2007

Sebastian Ventour, Judge.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE H.C.A....

Documents

Transcript of TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE H.C.A....