File
Attorney Crafton Miller, of Crafton Miller and Company, represented Universal Leasing in the Jamaican courts and at the United Kingdom Privy Council.Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
Jamaican lawyer's persistence that his client had a good case has paid off well for Universal Leasing and Finance Ltd., the client, which won its case in the United Kingdom Privy Council with an award of US$1.1 million with interest against Montego Vacations Ltd. for loss of profits.
Universal Leasing had entered into an agreement on February 18, 1982 to purchase a property on which the old Mahoe Bay Hotel was situated at Providence, St. James for $1.4 million for development as a hotel and tourist resort. Despite demands from Universal Leasing, Montego Vacations failed to complete the transaction and Universal Leasing sued for specific performance.
Attorney Crafton Miller, of Crafton Miller and Company, represented Universal Leasing in the Jamaican courts and at the United Kingdom Privy Council.
Winston Finzi, a director of Universal Leasing said: "The transaction took place in 1992, but was filed in 1985 and I must say that 20 years is a very long time to have this type of case going on. But despite all this, our lawyer, Crafton Miller, was very tenacious and for that I am extremely grateful for him".
The suit came for hearing before Justice Chester Orr (now retired) in the Supreme Court and in November 1996 he awarded Universal Leasing US$1.1 million in damages for loss of profit. He also ordered specific performance of the contract.
Montego Vacations appealed the Supreme Court's ruling and won. However, the Court of Appeal in handing down its decision in November 1999, ordered Montego Vacations to return Universal Leasing's deposit of $154,000 with interest at 25 per cent form October 17, 1985 to the date of its ruling on October 27, 1999.
The main dispute in the case was a letter of September 15, 1984 in which Universal Leasing said Montego Vacations had written saying it was in a position to deliver vacant possession on October 1, 1984 and fixed the completion date for the sale agreement for October 1, 1985. Montego Vacation made a no case submission at the trial in the Supreme Court on the ground that Universal Leasing did not establish the case pleaded and pointed out that its principal witness Winston Finzi had indicated that there was no written certification as provided for in the agreement.
The letter was not tendered in the Supreme Court or in the Court of Appeal. Justice Orr drew the inference that Montego Vacations had certified that it was in a position to deliver vacant possession of the property. The judge ordered specific performance of the contract and awarded damages for loss of profit. The Court of Appeal, in November 1999 set aside Justice Orr's ruling on the ground that because of the failure of the plaintiff (Universal Leasing) to produce the alleged letter of 15th September 1984, or to account for its absence, the trial judge should have concluded that no such letter existed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the contract was therefore unenforceable against the vendor, Montego Vacations because there was no date by which the vendor was bound to complete the contract.
Although the Privy Council found that the contract was "sloppily drafted," the Privy Council ruled that there was no sufficient ground for rejecting the trial judge's inference that the pleaded letter of September 15, 1984 had been written by Edgar Watson of Montego Vacations with authority to bind Montego Vacations to the completed date not later than October 1, 1985. The Privy Council said that as Justice Orr observed, "Universal's bank had provided a letter of commitment confirming that the balance of the purchase money would be available on completion. It is unlikely that the bank would have done so in the absence of a letter from, or on behalf of, Montego confirming that vacant possession would be given on completion." The Privy Council said also that it was a legitimate inference that the letter of September 15, 1984, or a copy of it, would have been listed at least in Montego Vacation's and in Mr. Watson's respective lists of documents. The Privy Council said "their Lordships have not been shown a list of the documents comprised in the agreed bundle (of November 4, 1996) but it seems almost inconceivable that it would not have included the letter of 15 September 1984."
The Privy Council set aside the Court of Appeal's ruling, restored Justice Orr's order and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for directions to be given for the purpose of carrying the order of specific performance into effect.
Donald Scharschmidt, Q.C. represented Montego Vacations.
