Motorist awarded $850,000 plus interest in lawsuit against State

A motorist who sued the State for $2.5 million claiming he lost, among other things, $1.1 million for the loss of the use of his vehicle, which was seized for four months, was instead awarded $850,000 plus interest in general damages after he could not provide proof of the expenses.

Granville Naulty, who was initially charged with traffic violations when his vehicle was seized, initiated the claim against the attorney general (first defendant) and the Transport Authority (second defendant) in November 2011, two and a half years after he was acquitted of the traffic breaches.

The claimant was arrested in March 2009 and charged with operating without a road licence and operating without a PPV. Members of the Island Special Constabulary Force and members of the Transport Authority who had stopped him accused him of using his vehicle as an illegal taxi.

But Naulty successfully challenged the case on the basis that the authorities had no basis to seize his vehicle or to prosecute him.

He contended then that he lost substantial income as the vehicle was his tool of trade and also that he incurred legal fees, storage fees, wrecker fees, and transportation costs for his trips to court.

Following his acquittal, Naulty initiated the lawsuit, seeking damages for negligence, conversion, and or wrongful interference with goods and malicious prosecution in which he also presented particulars for special damages totalling $2,508,800.

Besides the million lost in the non-use of the vehicle, also included were $450,000 for the loss of agricultural produce and $700,000 for the loss of roofing contracts.

There were also costs for legal fees, storage, travelling for court appearances, wrecker fees, and repairs.

No receipts provided

But the Supreme Court judge, after sustaining the claim for malicious prosecution, decided against granting Naulty any award for special damages due to discrepancies in the evidence as to the losses claimed and a lack of receipts.

“It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. In this case, there were no receipts provided supporting the special damages claim. What the claimant has done in his witness statement is to throw the figures at the court without any evidential basis to support them,” the judge said in the published judgment.

The judge, however, indicated that although Naulty had exhibited three documents to establish the cost for work done on the vehicle, the agreement for the work, and the termination of the contract, the weight and relevance had to be determined by the court given that there was no evidence that the claimant owned the vehicle or the date of the cost agreement, or who the parties were who signed the agreement.

According to the judge, the documents did not help the court as the claimant had not shown a direct correlation between the loss of use of his motor vehicle and the loss of the contract, which was to complete a roofing project.

“He also has a duty to mitigate his loss. If the vehicle was used for transportation, he could have utilised an alternative method to complete the contract,” the judge said in the judgment.

The court also took issue with discrepancies identified in the amounts listed for transportation, which, in one instance, was $6,000 and in another $5,500 for four days of attendance at court.

The court, however, awarded Naulty general damages in the sum of $850,000 with interest at three per cent from July 24, 2010, to April 19, 2024.

In the meantime, the court found that the claims for detinue or conversion or wrongful interference with goods were not made out on the case for the claimant.

The judge noted that although the claimant averred that he had made several requests for the return of his vehicle, he could not say to whom and when and what the stipulation or conditions were, and as such, there was no evidence to support the claim that the defendants intended to keep the motor vehicle in defiance of the claimant’s request.

Naulty was represented by attorney-at-law Raymond Samuels, while the defendants were represented by Dimitri Mitchell, instructed by the director of state proceedings.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com