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.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
    • Transcript Requests
  • 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 Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Court of Appeal Rules
      • 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
    • 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
    • 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 » THELMA BAILEY v LESTER WOODLEY

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES (CIVIL) A.D. 1990 -,
    SUIT
    119 of 1989
    BETWEEN
    THElMA BAILEY AND LESTER WOODLEY
    PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
    Mr. V. Cuffy for the Plaintiff Mr. M. Malcolm for Defendant.
    1990: November 20 and 26
    MATTHEW J.
    On March 15, 1989 the Plaintiff filed a writ of summons indorsed with statement of claim in which she asked for general damages for breach of contral and special damages comprising the value of her vehicle H1910 which she put at $18t OOO; loss of use to be assessed; and a return of $2,500 paid for work whic’ was not done. She also asked for her costs of the action.
    The Defendant entered appearance on March 28, 1989 and filed his defence April 24, 1989. In his defence the Defendant admitting receiving $2,500 from the Plaintiff but he denied agreeing to deliver the vehicle by the end of September 1986. He also admitted that he agreed to deliver the fully repaired vehicle to Adolphus Jacobs of Lowmans Windward on its completion. He stated that he will contend that repair work was done on the vehicle and that the vehicle has not depreciated. The Defendant alleged that he will plead frustra of the contract.
    Only the Plaintiff and the Defendant gave evidence at the trial. The Plaintiff stated that in July 1986 she gave the Defendant her Austin Minibus to repair rust spots on the body of the vehicle, to respray the vehicle and tc replace a missing rear windshield and she paid him $2500 for the labour and materials required. She stated that the Defendant was to finish the work by t end of September 1986 and then to deliver the repaired vehicle to Adolphus Ja( that this was never done. The Plaintiff left for England in August 1986 and ( return to Saint Vincent until March 1988.
    /2….. .
    -2She
    stated that while in England she telephoned the Defendant on three occasions in respect of the performance of his obliga~ions and she got various excuses from him but he was assuring her that the work would be completed.
    She stated that the vehicle was still in the Defendant’s possession.
    The Plaintiff stated that when she returned to Saint Vincent in March 198 she went to the Defendant’s garage and there she saw the vehicle in a worse st that when she had delivered it to him and that no work had been done on it. She said that parts of the vehicle had been removed; there were no lights to t front, the wipers were off and only part of the engine was on the van. She s she asked him for the missing parts and he replied that he will fix her up.
    She stated that she is aware that the Defendant obtained a windshield for the vehicle from one St. Clair Dowers of Camden Park and that at no time did h tell her he could not get a windshield.
    Lester Woodley stated that when he took the vehicle from the Plaintiff it was without front and rear windshield, the interior was damaged and there were other missing items. He put a value of $2,000 and $3,000 on the vehicle at th time. He stated that before he took the job he went to see Mr. Dowers who offered to sell him the windshields since he had a similar vehicle which was t off the road. He said he did not eventually get the windshields from Mr. Dowe His direct testimony or examination-in-chief was as follows:
    “1 did not get the winds~reen from Mr. Dowers. He told me it was a church vehicle and he had to discuss it with the congragation. He told me I would have to give him a chance. 1 kept checklng~ with him. 1 did not get tl parts. He told me the church decided not to sell the parts but to sell the whole vehicle for $2,000. I told the Plaintiff so. She told me she could not get a windscreen in England. I told her 1 cannot get the parts so I am prepared to give her back the money.” When he was cross-examined he stated:
    “I received $2500 to repair rust spots, paint and replace the windscree~_
    I agreed to deliver the vehicle to Adolphus Jacobs after it was finished. If
    agreed 1 would deliver it in September if 1 got the parts. Mr. Dowers gave.
    me a glass that was slightly bigger•••••••••••••••••••••••••A1l the time 1 ,
    .
    the vehicle it has depreciated••••••••••••••Mr. Dowers had a vehicle of th~
    type as the Plaintiff which was off the road.”
    /3••.• ” .
    “
    “
    -3At
    the trial the Defendant sought to say that before the Plaintiff
    delivered the vehicle to him for repairs it had been vandalized. This is not
    so relevant to the issue here save as to a proper value to be placed on the
    vehicle. Despite its condition the Defendant still thought that a sum of
    $2500 would put it on the road after he had repaired it. I do not believe the
    Defendant that the vehicle was in such poor condition as he put it or that its
    true value was between $2000 and $3000.
    It is not disputed that the Defendant is in possession of the Plaintiff’s
    vehicle from July 1986 to the present time and that he received $2500 for
    effecting repairs. In paragraph 6 of his defence the Defendant alleged that
    the vehicle has not depreciated in value but under cross-examination he admitt
    that it had depreciated. I find as a fact that the Defendant has done no work
    on the vehicle and it has in fact depreciated in value.
    I believe the evidence of the Plaintiff as coming from a witness of truth
    I believe her that she telephoned the Defendant from England on three occasion and that he always gave excuses for his non performance and at no time did he tell her he could not get a windshield or windshields for the vehicle. I beli
    her that it was only the rear windshield that was missing. I believe the Plaintiff too that when she visited the Defendant’s premise March 1988, not only did she find no repairs work done on the van but also tha parts were missing from the said vehicle. The Defendant has proved himself an unreliable witness when he gave evide in chief he specifically stated that he did not get the windshield from Mr. Do but when he was cross-examined he admitted that Mr. Dowers give him the glass was slightly bigger. How does that fit in with the decision of the church to the whole vehicle? I find the Defendant liable in breach of contract. The value of $18000 p on the vehicle by the Plaintiff is not supported by any written document or th testimony of an independent valuer. I therefore assess the value at $15,000. Plaintiff is entitled to the return of the money paid for the work, that is, t sum of $2,500. I
    award the Plaintiff damages for loss of use for four months calculated $250.00 a week or $1,000 a month.
    As to his defence of frustration I find as a fact that there was no frust event. But even if the Defendant did not get the rear windshield it is very doubtful that this event could frustrate the performance of a contract to repl rust spots, to respray the vehicle and to replace a windshield which is a reI.
    /4•••••
    · . . -4simple
    matter having regard to the principle of frustration as described as paras 1521 et seq of Chitty on Contracts~ 25th Edition ~olume I and paras 450 et seq of Volume 9 of Halsburys Laws of England~ Fourth Edition.
    The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff damages for the value of his vehicle assessed at $15~000; loss of use $4~000; refund of money paid to him $2,500, making a total of $21,500 and the Plaintiff’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.
    PUISNE J
    \
    I

    /thelma-bailey-v-lester-woodley/
     Prev
    NATHANIEL OTTLEY v DANIEL ANDREWS
    Next 
    KENNETH GUYNES v CORNELIUS PAUW
    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
    © 2022 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