Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Edmund Mansoor v Antigua Public Utilities Authority

    Edmund Mansoor v Antigua Public Utilities Authority
    1
    THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
    ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2011/0509
    BETWEEN:
    EDMUND MANSOOR
    Claimant
    and
    ANTIGUA PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Megan Samuels-Field for the Claimant

    Craig Christopher for the Defendant

    2013: October 8
    October 16

    December 11

    Judgment
    [1] Cottle, J.: Under the Public Utilities Act Cap 357 of the Laws of Antigua, the defendant is, by virtue
    of Section 5, granted the exclusive right to generate, distribute, supply and sell electricity in Antigua
    and Barbuda and to perform services incidental thereto. The Claimant installed a home security
    system to protect his home at Cedar Valley Springs in Antigua. As part of that system he had,
    professionally installed, three Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras, as part of a closed circuit television
    surveillance system.
    [2] During the night of 17th October, 2009 to 18th October, 2009, all three of the PTZ cameras
    malfunctioned. Subsequent investigation revealed that all had suffered permanent damage to their
    internal circuitry as a result of electrical power surges. The cameras had been connected to a
    2
    surge protector rated at 3,400 joules. They were also connected to an Uninterruptible Power
    Supply (UPS). The Claimant invited the defendant to compensate him for the replacement of the
    PTZ cameras as he considered it to be the defendant’s unreliable electrical supply which had
    caused the surges which destroyed the PTZ cameras. The defendant demurred. The defendant
    says that the claimant failed to adequately protect his equipment before connecting it to the
    electrical grid. They say that it is in the nature of electrical supply that there would be surges from
    time to time.
    The Claimant’s Case
    [3] The Claimant gave evidence and called one witness in support. The Claimant says that his home
    surveillance system had been installed by the leading local firm in the field. On their advice he
    purchased a surge protector manufactured by the American Power Corporation a well known and
    respected supplier of surge protector equipment. He bought the unit affording the greatest level of
    protection available at 3,400 joules despite having been advised that a protector rated at 1200
    joules would be adequate for his domestic needs. When cross examined, the claimant admitted
    that he was not familiar with the technical terms “voltage clamping requirement” and “response
    time requirement” as these applied to surge protectors. He had not considered these
    characteristics when purchasing and installing the surge protector for his surveillance system. In
    his pleadings, the claimant did not aver any damage to any other items or electrical appliances. In
    his testimony there was an effort to say that other items had also suffered damage in the power
    surge but this not having been foreshadowed in the pleadings, was not considered by the Court.
    [4] Mr. Roland Campbell was the technician who advised the Claimant and installed the surveillance
    system. It was he who determined, after inspecting the PTZ cameras, that they had been
    damaged beyond repair by electrical spikes or surges. He came to this conclusion upon seeing the
    burnt wires and smelling the burnt units. He too wished to add that he noticed other burnt
    components but as noted above this evidence was not considered.
    [5] When cross examined, he agreed that a power surge could occur if the main electricity was
    interrupted and a back-up generator switched on. He did not think this to have been the case
    3
    because the solenoid on the back-up generator was not burnt. He performed no technical tests on
    the burnt PTZ cameras.
    The Defendant’s Case
    [6] There were two witnesses for the defendant. Mr. Andre Matthias is the Chief Electrical Engineer of
    the defendant. He testified that in considering a surge protector, it is necessary to look at the
    voltage clamping and response time in addition to the joules rating. He thought this would be
    known to a reasonably competent technician, such as Mr. Campbell. He also added that PTZ
    cameras are highly sensitive and a quick response time in the surge protector was needed to keep
    them safe.
    [7] Mr. Matthias testified that the tests performed by Mr. Campbell, visual observation and smelling
    were wholly inadequate to conclusively determine that the damage to the PTZ cameras resulted
    from electrical power surges. Mr. Matthias concluded that the reason the PTZ cameras were
    damaged was because the response time of the surge protector was too slow. He arrived at that
    conclusion because he asserted that only the PTZ cameras were damaged. If the surge protector
    was adequate to protect the UPS and digital video recorder (DVR) which also formed part of the
    surveillance system, then the only conclusion possible was that the response time was too slow to
    save the PTZ cameras. There is a flaw in this argument. The Claimant did not plead that other
    items specifically the DVR and UPS, had been damaged. When cross examined both the Claimant
    and his witness said that both had been burnt by the surge. The defendant led no evidence to
    establish that the items had not been damaged. In the state of the pleadings and evidence, this
    court could make no factual determination either way. Thus the defendant’s witness cannot use a
    “fact” not established as the basis for his conclusion.
    [8] Mr. Matthias conceded that the defendant had in the past compensated customers for items
    destroyed by power surges even when these items had been connected to what he considered to
    have been adequate surge protection. At times there could be surges which would overcome any
    level of protection.
    4
    [9] Mr. Steadroy Roach is the Customer Service Engineer. He dispatched two technicians to inspect
    the home of the Claimant after a complaint had been received of the damaged PTZ cameras. He
    too, visited the home subsequently. He saw the surge protector rated at 3,400 joules. The
    technicians produced a report form. It is notable for its brevity. Though it does mention a UPS and
    surge protector, these are not described. The report speaks of a damaged CCTV surveillance
    system. It does not detail which elements of the system were damaged. The form provides for
    Mr. Roach to recommend whether the defendant should bear some,, all, or none of the
    responsibility for the damage. Mr. Roach made no recommendation and did not sign the form. It is
    on the basis of that form that he now says that the defendant ought not to be liable.
    [10] The defendant is public authority. It is exclusively empowered to supply electricity. The public is
    therefore entitled to be provided with a service that meets certain standards. Certainly, the
    defendant is not permitted to supply power in a manner that negligently causes loss to the public.
    It is patent that they would have had customers like the claimant in mind when they supply
    electricity. Indeed, such customers are the raison d’être of the deft.
    [11] The damage sustained by the claimant is of a kind which would not occur if the defendant had
    exercised proper care in the supply of electricity. It is for the defendant to provide an explanation if
    it can. In the present case I find the defendant’s explanation wanting. They suggest that the
    Claimant’s surge protector did not have a quick enough response time. Despite their expertise in
    this area, they offered no evidence of the response time that would have sufficed.
    [12] They do not tell the court what was the response time of the surge protector used by the Claimant.
    Instead they offer the circular logic that since they cameras were damaged, the response time
    must have been inadequate. Yet they concede that some surges are sufficient to overcome any
    level of protection. I find that the defendant has failed to satisfy me on a balance of probability that
    the explanation they proffer is enough to absolve them.
    [13] I find it more likely than not that the PTZ cameras were damaged by an electrical surge in the
    power supplied by the defendant. There is no evidence before me that the surge protection used
    5
    by the claimant was inadequate either in joules rating, voltage clamping or response time. On the
    contrary the evidence is that the joules rating was more than needed.
    [14] In the circumstances, I find that the claimant has succeeded. Judgment is entered for the claimant
    for $18,826.48, the replacement cost of the PTZ cameras. The defendant will pay interest on this
    sum at the rate of 5% per annum from judgment until payment. The defendant will pay the
    claimant’s prescribed costs on this amount.
    Brian Cottle
    High Court Judge

    /edmund-mansoor-v-antigua-public-utilities-authority-2/
     Prev
    Pierre Imfeld V Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Limited
    Next 
    Honourable Gaston Browne v The Attorney General of Antigua And Barbuda
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more