Rollin Clifton Bertrand and others v Anthony Elias (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2023] UKPC 34
Caribbean Welding Supplies Ltd v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)
28 March 2024
[2024] UKPC 7
Privy Council
The police wrongly took someone's excavator. A court gave money for the damage, but another court said the owner had to give the excavator back. The highest court decided the owner didn't have to return it and got to keep the money for the damage.
Key Facts
- •Appellant's business involved renting heavy equipment.
- •Police seized the appellant's excavator in 2015 for 27 months and 17 days due to a criminal investigation.
- •The excavator was unlawfully detained and its condition deteriorated.
- •Appellant sued the Attorney General for damages, including loss of rental payments and depreciation.
- •The excavator was returned before the High Court judgment.
- •The High Court awarded damages for depreciation but rejected the claim for loss of rental payments.
- •The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision on rental payments but ordered the appellant to return the excavator, deeming the depreciation award 'double recovery'.
- •The appeal to the Privy Council concerned the Court of Appeal's order to return the excavator and the costs awarded.
Legal Principles
In detinue, a claimant is entitled to the return of the chattel or its value, and damages for its detention.
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Limited [1963] 1 WLR 644; Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed Vol 38 at paragraph 1317; McGregor on Damages, 13th ed at paragraph 1032
The measure of damages for wrongful detention varies according to the circumstances, including the cost of hiring a substitute, lost income, fall in market value, and depreciation.
Brandeis Goldschmidt & Co Ltd v Western Transport Ltd [1981] QB 864; Davis v Oswell (1837) 7 C & P 804; Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 246; Williams v Archer (1847) 5 CB 318
The Court of Appeal's power under section 39 of the SCJA to set aside or make orders is limited to those the High Court could have made in the specific circumstances of the application before it.
Hannays v Baldeosingh [1992] 1 WLR 395
If the goods in detinue have been returned before judgment, the claimant can only recover damages for detention, not the value of the goods (to avoid double recovery).
McGregor on Damages, 13th ed (1972), para 1042; Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 14th ed (1975) at para 1173
Outcomes
The Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the Court of Appeal's order to return the excavator.
The Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction under section 39 of the SCJA to order the return of the excavator as the High Court could not have made such an order at the damages assessment stage. The award was for depreciation, not the full value of the excavator, and did not constitute double recovery. The appellant retained ownership rights.
The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the costs awarded by the Court of Appeal.
The appellant raised the cost issue for the first time before the Privy Council, which is against established practice.
Similar Cases
Phyllis Rampersad and another v Deo Ramlal and 3 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2022] UKPC 50
Yonggao Pan v Minister of National Security (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 31
Traille Caribbean Ltd v Cable & Wireless Jamaica Ltd (Trading as Lime) (Jamaica)
[2023] UKPC 19
Darren Singh v LMCS Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 5