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 » Michael Christopher v P.C. 240 John Flavien

    IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

    (CIVIL)

    SAINT LUCIA

    CLAIM NO: SLUHCV2004/0502

    BETWEEN:

     

    MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER

    Claimant

     

    and

    P.C. 240 JOHN FLAVIEN

    THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAINT LUCIA

    Defendants

    Appearances:

    Mr. S. Innocent for the Claimant

    Mr. D. Lay for the Defendants

    ————————————————–

    2007: December, 19th

    ————————————————–

    JUDGMENT

    1. This is an assessment of the damages due to the claimant to
    compensate

    him for the injury he suffered at the hands of the first defendant.

     

    2. The claimant, who was 35 years old at the time, suffered a gunshot
    injury to the anterior aspect of his right knee.

    3. The bullet penetrated the limb completely leaving an entry wound one
    centimeter in diameter and an exit wound one and one half centimeters
    across.

    4. He was hospitalized and treated. He was discharged from hospital on
    the same day. The limb was encased in plaster of paris. He was
    restricted to bed for several weeks as he convalesced. About three (3)
    months after the injury he was fully ambulant and undergoing therapy.

    A medical report in January 2004 revealed that his wound had healed. No
    note was made of any neurological deficit. He returned to work on April
    5th 2004, some three and a half months after he was shot.

    5. In his affidavit in support the claimant says that he was still
    unable to walk

    properly he could not flex his toes. He has not adduced any medical
    evidence in support of this claim. He further swears that his injury
    has impaired his mobility, crucial for his job as a waiter, to such an
    extent that his employee fired him on 12tth October, 2004. Again he led
    no supporting evidence of this at the assessment of damages stage. He

     

    seeks damages, special as well as general. He also wishes to be awarded
    exemplary damages.

    SPECIAL DAMAGES

    6. As has been noted many times in these courts, a claimant must plead

    particularize and prove his special damages. In this case the claimant
    only pleaded loss of $ 695.23 as special damages. The defendants are
    content that this amount be awarded. I therefore award the claimant

    $695.23 as special damages.

    GENERAL DAMAGES

    Pain suffering and loss of amenities.

    7. No special loss of amenities was pleaded. The medical evidence

    suggests that the claimant has made a full recovery. Yet obviously
    during his recovery he would have been restricted in enjoying the
    simple pleasures of life. I made a modest award of $1,000 in this
    regard.

    9. For pain and suffering I award the claimant $25,000.00. In arriving
    at this total I have carefully considered the authorities cited by both
    counsel including the cases of A ugustin Duncan v Commissioner of Police

    c
    laim NO
    . 2002/0052
    decided in 2006 in St. Lucia and Mitcham Black v

     

    Attorney
    General SLUHCV 20010728 decided in 2004.

    10. The claimant, now happily recovered is once again in full time
    employment.

    I make no award for any future loss of earnings.

    EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

    11. The claimant seeks to receive exemplary damages. Mr. Innocent on
    his

    behalf submits that the conduct of the defendant in sufficiently
    outrageous to warrant punishment. At the trial at which Edwards J (as
    she then was) found the defendants liable she thought that the conduct
    of the first defendant was negligent. It was not advertent conduct. His
    behavior was exacerbated “because the alcohol he imbibed made him
    intemperate”.

    12. The legal position as I understand it, is that the courts will very
    rarely make

    an award of exemplary damages where the conduct is inadvertent. I
    accept that there “may be the one case where the defendant departed so
    far and so flagrantly from the dictates of ordinary or professional
    precepts of prudence or standard of care” that it will satisfy the test
    of outrageousness, leading to an award of exemplary damages. I do not
    consider this to be such a case. Here the defendant, impaired by his
    alcohol intake, and incensed by the taunting of a hostile crowd,
    dischared a single round. I do not consider an award of

     

    exemplary damages justified. I am guided in my analysis by the reasoning of
    the Privy Council in A V Botnlll Privy Council Appeal NO. 10 of 2002 from which the
    quotation above is taken.

    COSTS

    1. I award the claimant the sum of $6,000.00 in costs. I point out that on
      the

    basis of presented costs this award would have been higher but the conduct
    of the litigation by the claimant, so lamented by Edwards J at paragraphs
    127 and 128 of her judgement has necessitated a separate assessment of
    damages. This extra expense ought to have been avoided. The reduction in
    the award of costs is intended to discourage future claimants from
    conducting their claims in a like manner.

    ……………………………………
    BRIAN S. COTTLE

    HIGH COURT JUDGE

    https://www.eccourts.org/michael-christopher-v-p-c-240-john-flavien/
     Prev
    DOUGLAS O’NEAL CREESE v VIBERT CREESE
    Next 
    MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER v P.C. 240 JOHN FLAVIEN et al
    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