By FRANCIS JOSEPH
A businesswoman has gone to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seeking permission to appeal against the decision of the local Court of Appeal not to award her damages over the seizure of an excavator by the police 20 years ago.
Amanda Rhoda Ramdeo’s application is now before Lord Loyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows, although no date has been set for the hearing. Her action is against the Attorney General.
So what is the issue in this appeal?
Question: Can Ramdeo claim damages for loss of earnings?
In March 2005, Ramdeo purchased a Caterpillar excavator model 215 DLC for $180,000. On the 14th of November 2005, Ramdeo rented the excavator to Gravel Management Company for a period of six days. When Shivanand Ramdeo, the Amanda’s brother, arrived at Gravel’s quarry site to collect the excavator, he was met by police officers who told him that the excavator had been seized as part of an investigation of illegal quarrying operations and would be stored at the Cumuto Army Base.
On the 9th of March 2006, Amanda was charged under Section 25(b) of the State Lands Act Chapter 57:01 with the offence being “concerned with the digging, winning and removal of materials from State lands without a licence”. The police told her that the excavator had to remain in police custody until the charge had been determined.
The excavator remained at the Army Base unused, unmaintained and exposed to the elements. The charges against were dismissed on the 6th of July 2012. In October 2013, Amanda visited the Army Base and requested the return of the excavator. She was informed by the police officer on duty that she could not remove the excavator because the dismissal of the charges may be appealed.
Amanda visited the Army Base again in or around November 2014 and requested the return of the excavator. On this occasion, she was given permission to take the excavator but could not move it due to its state of disrepair. On the 21st of January 2016, Amanda issued proceedings against the Attorney General for malicious prosecution, conversion, detinue (wrongful detention) and trespass to goods. At trial, the Amanda’s detinue claim succeeded.
The judge awarded damages for the cost of repairing the excavator, loss of earnings and exemplary damages. The claim for malicious prosecution, however, was dismissed on the ground that Amanda had not proved that the prosecution was malicious.
Both parties appealed against the decision of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the trial judge’s finding that the prosecution was not malicious. However, the Court of Appeal by majority overturned the trial judge’s award of damages for the cost of repair and loss of earnings. Amanda now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the Court of Appeal’s decision that she was not entitled to damages for loss of earnings.
