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 » EXPRESS DATA SYSTEMS LTD v VINCENT ALEXANDER

    1
    ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 119 OF 1998
    BETWEEN:
    EXPRESS DATA SYSTEMS LTD
    Plaintiff
    and
    VINCENT ALEXANDER
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Mr Samuel Commissiong for the Plaintiff
    Mr Arthur Williams for the Defendant
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    2000: July 5, 6, 18, 31, October 3, 10
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    JUDGMENT
    [1] MITCHELL, J: This was a case of detinue, passing off, and libel brought by the
    Plaintiff company (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) as the sole authorised Xerox
    distributor in St Vincent, against the Defendant, an ex-employee.
    [2] The generally endorsed writ had been issued at the request of the Plaintiff on 10
    March 1998. The Statement of Claim was filed on 26 May 1988. In it, the Plaintiff
    made the following allegations. At all material times it was the sole authorised
    representative for Xerox Business Machines in the State of St Vincent and the
    Grenadines. As such, the Plaintiff alone was entitled to order the entire range of
    Xerox machines for any other person in St Vincent. The Defendant had been an
    employee of the Plaintiff. On 1 April 1997 the Defendant without any notice
    resigned from his job as a technician and began to work on his own. He took with
    him 2 manuals for the photocopier models 1012 and 5310. As a result, the
    2
    Plaintiff was not able to repair the machines in question for about 3 weeks. The
    Plaintiff sent several messages to the Defendant to return the manuals, but the
    Defendant refused to do so. He threatened to shoot the Plaintiff’s Managing
    Director, Roger Clifton, like a dog if he came into his yard. Roger Clifton had
    reported the matter to the police who had started a criminal investigation. The
    Plaintiff claimed US450.00 for each of the 2 manuals. Further, the Defendant
    began to approach the customers of the Plaintiff and falsely represented himself
    as the authorised Xerox dealer. The value of the business from the various
    named customers was on average EC$25,000.00. Further, the Defendant had
    falsely and maliciously written of the Plaintiff on 7 February 1998 to Xerox that he,
    the Defendant, had been reading Xerox’s customer operation location page on the
    internet and had noted that the island of St Vincent and the Grenadines was left
    out of the customer operation location page. The Defendant had asked to know if
    Xerox did not recognise St Vincent or if there was no longer an official dealer in St
    Vincent. If so, the Defendant pointed out he had 10 years of training in sales and
    servicing products and was interested in representing Xerox in St Vincent. The
    Plaintiff complained that by these words the Defendant wrote and intended to
    convey the suggestion that the Plaintiff neglected Xerox’s business and might no
    longer be Xerox’s dealer in St Vincent and the Grenadines. His sole intent was to
    suggest that the Plaintiff did not work in the best interest of Xerox, and that he, the
    Defendant, with his 10 years of training in sales and service, would do a better job
    than the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed the return of the 2 manuals, damages for
    their detention of US$900.00, damages for passing off and/or misrepresentation,
    damages for libel, and any other relief that might seem to the Court to be just.
    [3] By his Defence filed on 22 July 1997, the Defendant denied the claims of the
    Plaintiff. In particular, he asserted that any person in St Vincent can obtain Xerox
    machines from a source other than Xerox and sell them in St Vincent. He
    accepted that the Plaintiff was the only person who could sell Xerox machines that
    came directly from Xerox. The Defendant claimed that he had been trained in the
    sales and servicing of Xerox products long before the Plaintiff was formed. The
    3
    Defendant had resigned from the Plaintiff on 1st May 1997. He had taken no
    manuals of the Plaintiff with him when he did so. He had had manuals long before
    he worked for the Plaintiff. The customers named by the Plaintiff had all been the
    customers of the Defendant and not of the Plaintiff. The Defendant had carried
    them to the Plaintiff when he had joined the Plaintiff, and they had come back to
    him when he had left the Plaintiff. As regards the alleged libel, the Defendant had
    gone on the internet and had seen the Xerox website and had seen a listing of all
    Caribbean countries except St Vincent. He had asked Xerox if there was no
    representative for St Vincent, and if there was none he had stated that he would
    be willing to represent Xerox as he had 10 years experience. The Defendant had
    had a gentleman’s agreement with the Plaintiff to be a partner in the Plaintiff’s
    business regarding the Xerox business. He was to have put in to the business
    $20,000.00 and a vehicle. The business was to have been known as Xerox
    Copying Center, and the Defendant was to have been the manager of it. Roger
    Clifton had never honoured the gentleman’s agreement, and so the Defendant had
    left the employment of the Plaintiff. This closed the pleadings in the case.
    [4] The order for discovery, etc, on the Summons for Directions was made on 25
    September 1998, and the Request for Hearing was filed on 19 October 1998. The
    matter has been ready for hearing ever since. A trial date was given at call over
    on 2 December 1999. Giving evidence for the Plaintiff was Roger Clifton, while
    Grantley Williams and Noel Williams supported the Defendant. The trial took up
    nearly two full days. The time spent on legal argument was much shortened
    through both counsel having reduced to writing their legal submissions, for which
    the court was grateful. The Plaintiff relied on the cases of:
    Rosenthal v Alderton [1946] 1 All ER 583
    Maxim’s Ltd v Dye [1978] 2 All ER 55
    J Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 800
    Erven Warnink Besloten Veennootschap v J Townend & Sons (Hull)
    Ltd [1979] AC 731
    4
    South Hetton Coal Co v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1891-4]
    All ER Rep 548
    [5] The Facts. The facts as I find them are as follows. The Plaintiff was formed by
    Roger Clifton of Kingstown Park in the year 1995. Its purpose is to sell and
    service office equipment and supplies. It is the authorised dealer in St Vincent and
    the Grenadines for the Xerox Corporation and IBM, both office equipment
    suppliers from the United States of America. The Plaintiff’s contract with the Xerox
    Corporation for the year 1998 was put in evidence. From the copy of the contract
    put in evidence, it appears that Xerox Corporation makes its dealers sign an
    annual Standard Xerox Distributor Agreement. By the contract, the Plaintiff
    undertakes to buy a minimum quantity of Xerox product and undertakes to service
    them when on-sold to customers. The Plaintiff is required to employ a well-trained
    staff and to maintain a suitable organization for the sale and maintenance of the
    products. There is a trade secrets clause binding the Plaintiff to keep confidential
    all verbal and written communications designated by Xerox Corporation as
    confidential. The Plaintiff is permitted to identify itself as the authorised distributor
    of Xerox products. If the contract is terminated, the Plaintiff is required to return
    products in its possession, together with all information, documentation and
    materials confidential to Xerox.
    [6] The Defendant has some ten years experience in selling and servicing Xerox
    products in St Vincent. He has been trained in Xerox products since 1990. He
    used to work for Xerox Corporation’s previous distributor in St Vincent, Modern
    Business Machines, owned by one Sinclair Leacock. That company appears now
    to have ceased distributing Xerox products. How the Defendant subsequently
    came to be working for the Plaintiff was put into dispute by the Defendant at the
    trial, though he had not originally raised any issue on this point on the pleadings.
    The two versions that came out in the evidence are as follows. Roger Clifton of
    the Plaintiff takes the view that the Defendant was a mere employee of the Plaintiff
    working for a salary, that is that the Defendant was employed as service manager
    5
    for Xerox products. The Defendant’s contrasting recollection is that in 1995, after
    Modern Business Machines had ceased to deal with Xerox, he had continued to
    sell and maintain Xerox products on his own account. His customers had included
    Shell, the Eastern Caribbean Group of Companies, the Ministry of Education, the
    British High Commission, the OAS, Scotiabank, and others. At this time the
    Plaintiff was not yet in existence. He was sharing office space with Roger Clifton
    at the Russell Building on Back Street. Roger Clifton told him that he was about to
    open his own office at the Georges Plaza and he would welcome the Defendant
    operating out of his office. Roger Clifton had applied for the distributorship for
    Xerox and wanted the Defendant to work for the Plaintiff. The Defendant was not
    willing to be an employee, but was willing to join with Roger Clifton on the
    understanding that a company would be formed to sell and service Xerox products
    in which company the Defendant would hold equity. The Defendant believed that
    he had a gentleman’s agreement with Roger Clifton for a company to be formed in
    which they would both hold shares. His recollection is that he was never paid a
    salary, but earned commissions for sales and fees for repairs and servicing of
    Xerox and other products sold by the Plaintiff. He introduced the Plaintiff to his
    contacts in Xerox and to his customers. His view was therefore that he had never
    been an employee of the Plaintiff, but had been an independent contractor
    working on his own account. That contrasts with his filed Defence, which has him
    not disputing that he was an employee of the Plaintiff. This dispute as to what
    exactly was the relationship of the Defendant with the Plaintiff during the time the
    Defendant worked in the offices of the Plaintiff does not require any decision by
    the court at this time, and I make no finding in relation to that issue.
    [7] By the year 1997, it had become apparent to the Defendant that he was going to
    continue to remain an employee of the Plaintiff contrary to his hopes and
    expectations, and that Roger Clifton was not going to include him as an equity
    holder in the Plaintiff or any other related entity. He felt that Roger Clifton had
    broken their gentleman’s agreement. He was dissatisfied. He gave notice on 1
    May 1997 that he was ceasing his relationship with the Plaintiff, and he left the
    6
    Plaintiff’s premises the same day. He continued to conduct his office equipment
    supply and repair business from other premises. Many of the customers who had
    gone over with him to the Plaintiff when he joined the Plaintiff left with him when he
    severed his relationship with the Plaintiff. Some of the new customers of the
    Plaintiff, who had not been customers of the Defendant before he joined the
    Plaintiff, but who had become accustomed to the Defendant personally servicing
    their Xerox equipment, also transferred their Xerox machine servicing and repair
    business from the Plaintiff to the Defendant after the Defendant left the Plaintiff’s
    premises.
    [8] This development must have put the Plaintiff in some difficulty. The Defendant
    had taken what he considered to have been his tools and his Xerox manuals with
    him when he left the offices of the Plaintiff on 1st April 1997. Roger Clifton
    demanded of the Defendant the return of these manuals. On or about 14 May he
    went to the house of the Defendant. He accused the Defendant of stealing them
    from his company. There was an altercation between the two of them, which
    resulted in the police being called to the scene. Roger Clifton claims that there is
    a criminal case brought against the Defendant, which case was still pending. The
    Defendant denies that there is any criminal case, and, indeed, there is no
    evidence of any criminal case other than Roger Clifton’s saying so. As a result of
    the accusations made against him by Roger Clifton, the Defendant filed a case
    against Roger Clifton for slander. Shortly after that case was filed, the writ in this
    case was issued by the Plaintiff and served on the Defendant. The slander case
    never came to trial. The Defendant views this present suit as Roger Clifton’s
    strategy to defend the slander case. Roger Clifton denies that such was his
    reason for filing this suit, and he views this suit as his remedy to protect his
    company from what he views as the illegal acts of the Defendant.
    [9] When the Defendant left the Plaintiff’s employment in April 1997 he formed his
    own firm, Business Machines and Services. On the top of the letterhead he
    placed the following advertisement: “We specialize in and stock parts and supplies
    7
    for all Xerox machines. We also provide prompt and efficient service.” He
    continued to sell Xerox parts and supplies that he obtained from overseas. He
    continued to service Xerox equipment for individuals and companies that owned
    such equipment in St Vincent and the Grenadines. All this was in competition with
    the Plaintiff, which was the authorised Xerox agent in St Vincent and the
    Grenadines. This is the passing off of which the Plaintiff complains. The Plaintiff
    considers that by the Defendant describing himself as “specialising” in Xerox parts
    and supplies he is, either expressly or impliedly, wrongfully claiming to the public
    to be an authorised Xerox representative. Incidents occurred between the
    Defendant and Roger Clifton of the Plaintiff. We have seen the incident over the
    ownership of the manuals that came to a head in May 1997. The Plaintiff was able
    to get Xerox Corporation in May 1997 to send a circular letter to all Xerox
    customers in St Vincent confirming that the Defendant was no longer an employee
    of the Plaintiff, was therefore not authorised to transact any business on behalf of
    the Plaintiff or of Xerox Corporation, and that the Plaintiff remained the sole
    distributor for Xerox in St Vincent and the Grenadines. The Plaintiff was perfectly
    entitled to have its supplier protect the Plaintiff’s business and customer
    relationships in this way. The Defendant does not claim otherwise or complain of
    this action by Xerox or the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not give up his hope of
    becoming an authorised representative of the Xerox Corporation in St Vincent and
    the Grenadines. In November 1997 the Defendant applied directly to Xerox to be
    officially given the right to represent Xerox in St Vincent. His application was
    written on the letterhead that mentioned Xerox in the way described above. He
    applied for a pass code and a number to be able to access Xerox Service hot line
    directly. The Defendant concluded that if his proposal was accepted this would
    improve customer satisfaction and give Xerox a second set of eyes in the St
    Vincent market, and strengthen Xerox’s hold on the local market. The Plaintiff
    complains that this application of the Defendant was malicious and cast
    imputations on the quality of the Plaintiff’s representation of Xerox in St Vincent.
    In February 1998 the Defendant was on the internet viewing the Xerox web site.
    He came across a listing of Caribbean authorised agencies. He noticed that St
    8
    Vincent and the Grenadines was missing from the list. Whether mischievously or
    innocently, he dashed off to Xerox an enquiry. He enquired whether Xerox no
    longer recognised St Vincent or whether there was no longer an official dealer
    here. If not, he expressed his interest in representing Xerox in St Vincent. To this
    enquiry the Xerox representative replied that the Plaintiff was the authorised Xerox
    distributor in St Vincent, and that Xerox would be fixing the error on the web page
    listing. The Plaintiff complains that by this enquiry the Defendant implies that the
    Plaintiff was neglecting Xerox’s business. The Plaintiff complains that this
    allegation was false and malicious and entitles the Plaintiff to damages for libel.
    [10] The Claim in Detinue. The tort of detinue is committed when a person has a right
    to immediate possession of some goods that are wrongfully detained by the
    defendant who refuses to give them up on demand. The redress usually claimed
    is the return of the chattel or payment of its value together with damages for its
    detention. The Plaintiff’s view is that the Xerox manuals, however obtained by the
    Defendant, contain trade secrets of Xerox and are the property of Xerox and the
    Plaintiff has the right to claim them back and to sue for them. The Plaintiff
    produced no evidence, other than the word of Roger Clifton, that the repair
    manuals contain trade secrets of Xerox; the Defendant on the contrary gave
    evidence that such manuals are easily obtainable to repair-technicians on the
    open market and contain no trade secrets. I am satisfied that the repair manuals
    contain technical information necessary to be known for the repair and servicing of
    Xerox machines. There is no necessary connection between technical information
    and trade secrets. I am not satisfied that the repair manuals contain any
    information that would amount to trade secrets. While Xerox may discourage any
    other than their authorised agents from owning manuals or repairing their
    equipment, I accept the evidence of the Defendant that there is nothing to stop the
    owner of a Xerox machine from employing any person he chooses to repair the
    equipment he has purchased. It was for the Plaintiff to prove the ownership of the
    manuals in question. I am not satisfied on a balance of the probabilities from the
    evidence that the repair manuals are the property of Xerox. I am not satisfied from
    9
    the evidence that the Defendant removed from the premises of the Plaintiff Xerox
    repair manuals that the Plaintiff had acquired and that were the property of the
    Plaintiff. I have no difficulty in believing the Defendant that he had acquired
    manuals before he joined the Plaintiff in whatever capacity, and that he did no
    more than take with him his personal copies of the Xerox manuals. The claim of
    the Plaintiff in detinue fails.
    [11] The Claim of Passing Off. The common law tort of passing off is constituted by a
    misrepresentation made by a trader in the course of trade to prospective
    customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods and services supplied by him
    which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader, and which
    causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action
    is brought. The question that is to be asked when one is looking to see if the tort
    of passing off has been committed in this case is: has the Plaintiff proved that the
    use by the Defendant of the trading style “We specialize in and stock parts and
    supplies for all Xerox machines” was calculated to lead to the belief that its
    business was the business of the Plaintiff? Xerox Corporation has confirmed to
    the customers of the Plaintiff that only the Plaintiff is its authorised distributor.
    Xerox Corporation has not attempted to prevent the Defendant from selling Xerox
    products or servicing them. I am not satisfied that Xerox Corporation has the right
    in law in any country, far less in the State of St Vincent and the Grenadines, to
    place such a restriction on the Defendant. Xerox Corporation has not attempted
    some indirect restriction on the right of the Defendant to trade in Xerox supplies
    by, for example, complaining about any alleged misuse by the Defendant of any
    copyright or trade mark belonging to Xerox Corporation. Xerox Corporation has
    made no complaint to or against the Defendant either before or after this case was
    filed about his use of the Xerox name or trade mark or copyright. In exchange for
    promising Xerox Corporation that he will limit his stock and services to those
    produced by Xerox, an authorised distributor may get a better price from Xerox
    and make a higher profit than an unauthorised dealer; an authorised distributor
    may get support and help from Xerox that may make him more efficient and
    10
    competent and profitable than an unauthorised dealer; but, there is nothing I can
    find in the evidence to suggest that there is anything to restrict or prohibit the right
    of any technician or business person in St Vincent from selling Xerox products and
    supplies or servicing Xerox machines. I find that there is nothing inherently wrong
    in a technician claiming on his letterhead or other literature that he “specialises in
    and stocks parts and supplies for” particular machines. This is especially so if the
    claim is true, as I find it was in this case. I do not find that this amounts to the
    Defendant claiming either expressly or impliedly to be an authorised Xerox
    distributor. I find nothing in the evidence or in common sense that satisfies me
    that Xerox has the power or authority to prevent persons other than authorised
    distributors from repairing or servicing or distributing Xerox supplies. Even if the
    Defendant had wrongfully claimed in his literature to be an authorised distributor in
    St Vincent and the Grenadines for Xerox Corporation, which he did not, only Xerox
    Corporation or someone acting on its behalf could properly complain about this
    wrong in the civil courts of this State. The Plaintiff had no standing in law to
    complain that the Defendant was detaining the property of Xerox Corporation, or
    was misusing the intellectual property of Xerox Corporation. Nor do I find that the
    evidence can be stretched to find that the Defendant was by his actions
    complained of passing himself off as an authorised distributor of Xerox
    Corporation, in effect that he was passing himself off as the Plaintiff.
    [12] The Claim in Libel. The law is that a trading company has a trading character the
    defamation of which may ruin it. Accordingly, a trading company may maintain an
    action of libel or slander for any words that are calculated to injure its reputation in
    the way of its trade or business, and it is not necessary to prove special damage.
    The nub of the Plaintiff’s further complaint is that the Defendant was not merely
    seeking business from Xerox; he was implying something quite malicious about
    the Plaintiff’s handling of Xerox’s products and services. The complaint is that the
    Defendant was not only passing off himself as an authorised Xerox representative
    in St Vincent and the Grenadines, he also wished to clothe his wrongful operations
    with the sanction of Xerox. He did so, the complaint goes, by suggesting to Xerox
    11
    that if Xerox would only appoint him Xerox would see a vast improvement in
    Xerox’s business in St Vincent and the Grenadines; he was seeking to defame the
    Plaintiff in the minds of the Xerox Corporation in North Carolina; he was attempting
    to create mistrust that would lead to the loss of business and ultimately the
    distributorship for the Plaintiff with the resulting loss in work and income; he was
    suggesting that Xerox’s interests were not receiving the level of attention in St
    Vincent as it deserved; he was wrongfully implying to officers of the Xerox
    Corporation that the Xerox customers in St Vincent were not receiving a
    satisfactory level of service from the Plaintiff; the statements made by the
    Defendant were reasonably calculated to lead Xerox Corporation to believe that
    the Plaintiff conducted its business in such an inefficient manner that it was to
    Xerox’s detriment to continue to keep the Plaintiff as the sole authorised
    distributor. As it was, Xerox Corporation has, as we have seen above, shown
    itself confident in the ability of the Plaintiff to operate the Xerox distributorship in St
    Vincent. Every person in St Vincent who considers himself suitably trained or
    competent has the right to apply to Xerox Corporation to represent the company in
    this State. The Defendant had every right to apply to Xerox to allow him to be the
    authorised distributor in place of or in addition to the Plaintiff. On the evidence, I
    am satisfied that all that the Defendant did in this case was to make a number of
    legitimate enquiries of and approaches to Xerox Corporation. The Defendant was
    entitled to say or to infer that he would do a better job than the present distributor.
    To have done so was not to slight or libel the existing authorised distributor in a
    way that was illegal. I have heard nothing to suggest that it has not always been
    normal and proper for business machine technicians and would-be distributors to
    compete for business in this way. To find otherwise would be to place an
    unauthorised restraint on competition in supplies and services and would be
    contrary to public policy and the public interest. The Plaintiff’s claim in libel is
    dismissed.
    12
    [13] Given the findings of fact above and the dismissal of the claims brought by the
    Plaintiff against the Defendant, the Defendant is entitled to his costs to be taxed if
    not agreed.
    I D MITCHELL, QC
    High Court Judge

    /express-data-systems-ltd-v-vincent-alexander/
     Prev
    JACINTA DUPRE v COLOMBIAN EMERALDS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
    Next 
    LOUISE CHANCE v VERONICA JOHN
    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