Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • 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
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • 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
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • 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 & Administration of Estates Rules
    • Court of Appeal 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
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals 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
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • JEI Programme
      • 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 » Grenada Development Bank v Dexter Chance

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

    AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

    (CIVIL)

     

    GRENADA

     

    CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2010/0166

     

    BETWEEN:

     

    GRENADA DEVELOPMENT BANK

    Claimant

    and

    DEXTER CHANCE

    Defendant

    Before:

    The Hon. Mde Justice Agnes Actie

    Appearances:

    Ms. Michelle Emmanuel Steele, Amy Bullock-Jawahir and Cara St Paul for the
    Claimant

    Ms. Winifred Duncan Phillip with Caryn Adams for the Defendant

    ______________________________

    2020: March 17

    October 5

    _____________________________

     

    JUDGMENT

    [1] ACTIE, J: The facts in this case are not disputed. By
    way of the said Bill of Sale the defendant assigned a vessel named “Nestell
    2” to the claimant to secure repayment of a loan facility in the sum of
    $147,000.00 with interest. The defendant defaulted in payment and the
    claimant took possession of vessel at the Gouyave Jetty and transferred it
    to the True-Blue Coast Guard Base at St. George’s, Grenada for storage. The
    claimant sold the vessel for $60,000.00 leaving a shortfall on the mortgage
    debt. This extant claim seeks to recover the shortfall in the sum of
    $77,789.69 inclusive of interest.

    [2] The defendant admits that he fell into arrears under the said Bill of
    Sale but contends that the claimant sold the said Vessel at a gross
    undervalue. The defendant states the vessel was purchased brand new in
    March 2006 at a price of $147,000.00 and after purchase he spent an
    additional sum of $87,000.00 to substantially upgrade the vessel in
    Trinidad and Tobago. The defendant avers that the improvements comprised
    items such as gears, long line spools, boat well, solar system,
    navigational equipment and a “C33” combination sound and plotter. The
    vessel was valued at $255,279.84 by Llewellyn Ellis on 11th
    December 2007 after the improvements.

    [3] It is the defendant’s evidence that the boat was in excellent condition
    when it was seized by the claimant in February 2009, having been recently
    dry docked and painted with its steering shaft replaced. The defendant
    avers that the total value of the boat with all its equipment and contents
    when seized was $298,467.03 but was sold by the claimant at a grossly
    undervalued price of $60,000.00. The defendant contends that he is not
    liable for the shortfall claimed by the claimant.

    [4] The defendant states that he suffered loss as a result of the
    claimant’s breach and counterclaims for a sum of $ $238,467.03 being the
    value of the vessel with its contents less the sale price. The defendant
    described the claimant’s breach of its duty of care as follows:

    (i) Failure to obtain the true market value for the boat as the boat was
    not adequately advertised or adequately described.

    (ii) Failure to allow the defendant to remove the large number of items and
    equipment from the vessel when the Claimant took possession and transferred
    the vessel to the True-Blue Coast Guard Base, St. George’s.

    (iii) Failure to properly maintain, preserve and secure the said Vessel at
    the Coast Guard base which resulted in the vessel being raided of most of
    its equipment and becoming filled with water which consequently led to
    engine seizure.


    What is the duty of a mortgagee’s when exercising the power of sale

    [5] A mortgagee, when exercising its power of sale must
    “act in a prudent and business-like manner with a view to obtain as large a
    price as may fairly and reasonably, with due diligence and attention, be
    under the circumstances available’

    [1]

    [6] In Cuckmere Brick Co. Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd

    [2]

    Salmond LJ described the duty of the selling mortgagee as follows:

    “The mortgagee must have regard to the mortgagor’s interests and must take
    reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the mortgage
    property at the date on which it decides to sell it”.

    The mortgagee therefore is under an obligation to exercise reasonable care
    to sell only at the proper market value.

    [7] The claimant submits that it acted reasonably to discharge its duty of
    care to sell at the best price that could have been reasonably obtained and
    there is no evidence that it acted in bad faith. The claimant contends that
    it took reasonable care to preserve the vessel and had it serviced and
    repaired on two occasions along with insurance coverage while anchored at
    the Coast Guard Base.

    Analysis

    [8] Whether the mortgagee exercised due diligence in fulfilling its duty is
    a question of fact looking at all the circumstances. It is the effort
    rather than the result to which the court looks. The burden rests on the
    mortgagor to establish that the mortgagee failed to discharge its duty.

     

    The Valuations

    [9] The claimant presented the valuations of its two witnesses in support
    of the claim. Mr. Roland Baldeo, inspected the vessel on 24th
    February 2009 and gave it a fair market value of $100,000.00. The second
    valuator, Christopher Holder, inspected the vessel on 29th
    September 2009 and in his report dated 8th October 2009, gave
    the vessel a fair market value of $75,000.00. Both valuations state that
    the vessel’s superstructure was in very good condition and the structural
    integrity had not in any way been compromised. Interestingly, the following
    items detailed in Baldeo’s March 2009 report were not reflected in the
    Holder’s October 2009 report made some 7 months after, namely:

    i. Two 12 V batteries,

    ii. Emergency Tiller,

    iii. 1 VHF Marine Radio Bracket;

    iv. 1 Shakespeare 6 DB VHF Antena;

    v. 1 Global Positioning System GPS bracket

    vi. 1 12 Volts electrical bilge pump

    vii. 2 working lights

    [10] In his written submissions, the defendant contends that the bank’s
    valuations did not give an accurate description and appraisal of the
    vessel. The defendant states that the new vessel purchased in March 2006
    was substantially upgraded and relies on a valuation of Llewellyn Ellis
    dated 11th December 2007 with the upgraded value of $255,279.84.
    The defendant states that he was about to go out fishing on the morning
    that the boat was seized but was not given an opportunity to clear the
    items which did not form part of the mortgage facility. The defendant
    contends that the valuations relied on by the bank failed to take into
    consideration the improvements made to the boat after purchase together
    with the items stored on the vessel when it was seized.

     

     

     

    Was the vessel adequately advertised

    [11] It is well established law that it is the duty of a mortgagee when
    realizing the mortgage property by sale to behave in conducting such
    realization as a reasonable man would have behaved in the realization of
    his own property, so that the mortgagor can receive credit for the fair
    value of the property sold. The Mortgagee’s conduct is to be judged with
    reference to its conduct and efforts made in obtaining the true market
    value at the date it decides to exercise its power of sale. It is for the
    court to decide whether the mortgagee took reasonable care by looking at
    the efforts made in discharging that duty.

    [12] With respect to effective advertising, the Court of Appeal in Caribbean Banking Corporation V Alpheus Jacobs

    [3]

    per Carrington JA (ag) said:

    “There can be little dispute that proper compliance with the bank’s
    statutory duties required it to advertise the sale, to describe the
    properties properly in the advertisements and ensure that the
    advertisements were sufficient in number and content to reach the
    appropriate market. The advertisements should also have been sufficiently
    in advance of the sale to permit prospective purchasers to attend the
    auction and the auction should have been held under reasonable conditions.

    [4]

    [13] The vessel was advertised for sale by private treaty with a reserved
    price of $100,000.00 in two newspaper publications on the 13th
    March 2009 and 20th March 2009, respectively, with closing bid
    date on 30th March 2009. The vessel was further advertised for
    sale by private treaty at a reserved price of $90,000.00 on the 29 th May 2009 and 5th June 2009 respectively, with a
    closing bid date of 9th June,2009.

    [14] Both advertisements gave short notice of the sale. The second
    advertisement gave an extremely short period of 4 days for bidding at a
    much-reduced price to what was stated in the March 2009 valuation.

    [15] It is noted that the Christopher Holder’s valuation made in October
    2009, giving a value of $75,000.00 postdated the advertisements made in
    June 2009. It is the defendant’s evidence that the Bank entered into an
    agreement to sell the boat on 27th August 2009. This was a full
    month before the second valuator inspected the boat on 29th
    September 2009. The boat was sold on 7th October 2009, before
    the date the second valuation report of 8th October 2009. The
    defendant states that the second valuation could not and did not inform the
    price accepted by the Bank.

    [16] In

    RBTT Bank v Elisha Baptiste

    [5]


    Benjamin J said

    “It seems to me that each advertised sale must be viewed as a separate
    event. It would not be correct to treat all the advertisements as events
    exposing the property to the market as each prospective purchaser reading
    an advertisement would be guided by the date of the auction. If he did not
    attend, he would assume the property was sold and put it out of his mind;
    his interest would only be re-kindled by a advertisement for a fresh sale.
    This is hardly a satisfactory method of exposing the property to the local
    market. In my view, a more sustained course of advertisement over a longer
    period ahead of the sale in at least two newspapers would have been
    acceptable.”

    ……….

    “The offer of the purchaser was the only one received after the
    advertisement inviting bids. In light of what I have found to be inadequate
    arrangements for the sale by public auction as well as by private treaty
    and the inadequacy of the description of the property in all
    advertisements, I am satisfied that on the evidence the Claimant did not
    take reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property
    at the time of the sale.”

    [17] I am of the view that that the bank’s duty to advertise adequately was
    unsatisfactory in several respects. The short intervals of the
    advertisements and the course pursued in the sale of the leads to the
    ineluctable conclusion that the vessel was not sold under circumstances
    calculated to produce the best price that could have been reasonably
    obtained.

    [18] A mortgagee who repossess the mortgaged property, with a view to a
    sale, puts itself in a position of responsibility, and if, in selling the
    property, fails to take every proper precaution to secure the best price,
    his conduct is deemed to be equivalent to willful neglect and default. The
    effect of the unsatisfactory advertisement in relation to the sale by
    private treaty means that the claimant failed to take reasonable care to
    ensure that the property was sold at the market value.

    [19] What then should be a fair market value for the vessel. The two
    valuations for the bank gave the vessel a fair market price of $100,000.00
    and $75,000.00 respectively. The defendant on the other hand presented the
    valuation of Mr. Llewellyn Ellis with a value of $255,279.84 after the
    improvements. The preferred valuation is a matter of fact to be determined
    by the court.

    [20] In Caribbean Banking Corporation v Alpheus Jacobs
    Carrington JA (ag) citing “Cuckmere Brick Co

    [6]

    , in considering the duty of good faith owed in equity by a chargee
    exercising its power of sale, opined that:

    Valuation is not an exact science. Equally careful and competent valuers
    may differ within fairly wide limits about the value of any piece of land.
    But there are limits. When there is conflict, it is for the judge to decide
    which evidence is to be preferred”.

    [21] Having reviewed all the evidence, I accept the defendant’s evidence
    that he made significant improvements to the vessel after purchase. The
    Llewellyn’s valuation in my view is the most credible of the three
    valuations. The Baldeo and Hutchinson valuations appear to have been
    juxtaposed against the value of a new vessel and failed to take into
    consideration the improvements made by the defendant. Both valuators in
    cross examination could not confirm or deny that the boat had been upgraded
    after purchase.

    [22] My preference for the Llewellyn’s report is further bolstered by the
    fact that the bank insured the hull and engine at a value of $220,000.00
    while it was being stored at Coast Guard Base. However, I take into
    consideration that the Llewellyn valuation was done in December 2007 and
    the issue of depreciation should be considered. Mrs. Veron Marshall, Credit
    Officer for the claimant, admitted that had the boat been sold for the
    insured sum of $220,000.00, it would have been sufficient to pay off the
    defendant’s indebtedness to the bank.

    [23] The claimant failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the boat
    was sold at $60 000.00, when both of its valuation gave estimates in excess
    of the sale price. It appears that the bank merely made an arrangement to
    sell the vessel at a gross undervalue without making an effort to obtain
    the fair market value.

    [24] A mortgagee’s sale of an asset undervalue causes grave prejudice on
    the mortgagor, since it erodes the effective value of the mortgagor’s
    equity of redemption. A sale price which is inadequate leaves no surplus
    for the mortgagor and also leaves a deficit on the mortgage loan for which
    the mortgagor will still be duty-bound to repay under the mortgage
    contract. I find that the defendant has discharged his burden in
    establishing that the bank failed to exercise the due diligence expected of
    a mortgagee. The vessel in my view was not properly valued or advertised.

    [25] In the circumstance, I am minded adopting the bank’s insured value of
    $220,000.00 as a fair market price of the vessel. The bank failed to make
    efforts to sell the vessel at a price near the insured value. The bank was
    not simply entitled to adopt any arrangement or accept any price merely
    because its debt would be satisfied or partially satisfied.

    Special Damages

     

    [26] In his counterclaim, the defendant pleaded and particularized a list
    of additional items totaling the sum of $43,187.19 which were on the vessel
    when it was seized. I accept the defendant’s assertion that the boat
    contained items that did not for part of the mortgage facility and the
    valuation.

    [27] Mrs. Marshall for the claimant, admitted that she did not take an
    inventory when the boat was seized in February 2009, and that an inventory
    was never done during the period that the vessel was at the Coast Guard
    Base. In cross- examination, she said ‘thinking now I should have made
    one’.

    [28] Mr. Peter Modeste, a Police Officer, retained by the Bank to seize the
    vessel also admitted that he did not do an inventory of the items left on
    the boat although one was requested by the Bank.

    [29] The claimant states that the defendant was given an opportunity to
    take the items from the boat which the defendant vehemently denies. The
    defendant asserts that he made several complaints to the bank when he
    noticed that boat was being raided and items were being removed. Mrs.
    Marshall admits that the defendant made several complaints about the vessel
    not being secured and items being removed from the boat. The defendant’s
    complaints were further evidenced in a letter dated May 24,2009 addressed
    to the Managing Director reiterating the verbal complaints that the vessel
    was being raided while docked at the Coast Guard Base.

    [30] The items pleaded and particularized totaling the sum of $43,187.19 in
    the counter claim were not all substantiated with receipts. It is trite law
    that special damages are to be pleaded and proved

    [7]

    . It is also settled law that where there is evidence of actual loss but
    there is no evidence to prove the quantum, the court can award nominal
    damages which may not be out scale. This principle was enunciated by the
    Privy Council in Greer v Alstons Engineering Sales & Services Ltd

    [8]

    where it states:

    “When such evidence is not provided, however, it is open to the trial judge
    to give consideration to an award of nominal damages. In McGregor on
    Damages (13th Edn) at para 295 it is stated: ‘Nominal damages may also be
    awarded where the fact of a loss is shown but the necessary evidence as to
    its amount is not given. This is only a subsidiary situation, but it is
    important to distinguish it from the usual case of nominal damages awarded
    where there is a technical liability but no loss’. In the present case the
    problem is simply one of proof, not of absence of loss but of absence of
    evidence of the amount of loss.”

    [31] I accept the defendant’s evidence that the boat was equipped for
    fishing with all the ancillary items needed to ply his trade when it was
    seized. I note the particulars of the items pleaded and accepts the fact
    that receipts would not be readily available to prove the total sum
    claimed. In the circumstances, I make a nominal award of $20,000.00 which
    in my view is not out of scale.

    [32] In summary and for the reasons outlined, the claimant’s claim stands
    dismissed. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant on the counter
    claim in the sum of $180,000.00 that is $220,000.00 (insured price) –
    $60,000.00 (sale price) + $20.000.00 (nominal special damages). The total
    sum of $180,000.00 awarded shall be discounted by deducting the sum due and
    owing on the mortgage debt at the date of the sale of the vessel.

    ORDER

    [33] It is ordered and directed as follows: –

    (i) The claimant’s claim stands dismissed with Prescribed Costs to the
    defendant in accordance with CPR 65.5.

    (ii) Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant on the counterclaim in
    the sum of $180,000.00. This sum is to be reduced by the sum due and owing
    on the loan facility at the date of the sale of the vessel.

    (iii) Interest at the rate of 6% on the balance from the date of judgment
    until payment in full.

    (iv) Prescribed Costs on the remaining balance in accordance with CPR 65.5.

    Agnes Actie

    High Court Judge

    By the Court

    Registrar




    [1]

    McHugh v Union Bank of Canada [1943]AC 299 at 311


    [2]

    [191] CH 949 at 968 H – 969A.


    [3]

    HCVAP 2004/010


    [4]

    see Fisher and Lightwood Law of Mortgage 10th ed. p. 390


    [5]

    Claim No GDAHCV 2002/0373


    [6]

    at 959 D


    [7]

    Grant v Motilal Ltd & Anr; Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 2 All ER 879


    [8]

    (2003) 63 WIR 388

    /grenada-development-bank-v-dexter-chance/
     Prev
    Wakeem Guishard v The Attorney General Of The Virgin Islands
    Next 
    Court of Appeal Sitting – 24th to 28th February 2020
    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
    © 2021 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