Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
A CASE INVOLVING a loan transaction with an unusual deduction for entertainment and gifts was disposed of in the Supreme Court last week.
Basil Simms, of 74 Palmetto Avenue, Kingston 6, who had borrowed $1.5 million from Joan Dawkins, an operations manager who was his friend, had put in a claim for a deduction of $355,500 for entertainment and gifts which he said he gave her.
Dawkins made repeated requests to Simms for the money but Simms failed to pay her. She then sued Simms last year to recover the $1.5 million she had lent him in three instalments in December 2001 with interest at the rate of 9.75 per cent.
Simms filed a defence and counter claim on September 10 last year in which he said that at all material times he and Dawkins were close friends, contemplating marriage and the loans were, in part, and with Dawkins' knowledge, used to purchase items of household furniture and personal effects for their future household and clothing for Dawkins. He said the money was also used to cover the cost of entertaining Dawkins. He denied that interest would be payable on the loan.
He filed a counter claim for $355,500 which he said was used to buy gifts and entertain Dawkins. The gifts were one seven-piece mahogany dining table set for $250,000, one rug for $10,000, two paintings for the living room and bedroom totalling $20,000, three suits totalling $25,000. He claimed $50,000 for entertainment.
After Simms filed his defence, Dawkins who was represented by attorney-at-law Andre Earle, of the law firm Rattray Patterson Rattray, applied for summary judgment or to have the defence struck out on the ground that Simms did not have any good arguable defence.
Mr. Justice Horace Marsh heard the summons and ruled on March 21 this year that Simms had no defence whatsoever to Dawkins' claim and his defence was filed purely with a view to preventing Dawkins from obtaining judgment.
"This defence is not sustainable," the judge held. The judge said further that Simms had admitted that he had received "loans from the plaintiff, that he had given her a post-dated cheque to cure his indebtedness to her in the sum of $1,500,000; that he withdrew this cheque and replaced it with a memorandum indicating his indebtedness to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500,000."
The judge said Simms having admitted in his defence that "loans made by the plaintiff to defendant were used to purchase items cannot blow hot and cold."
"The loans advanced were loans plain and simple and the items on which they were spent were immaterial as to whether they should be repaid. I am convinced by the affidavit evidence that defendant's defence is not a real defence at all, and like the counter claim, is merely designed to delay the plaintiff," the judge held.
After Mr. Earl indicated to the court that Dawkins was no longer pursuing the claim for interest, the judge entered summary judgment in the sum of $1.5 million in Dawkins' favour.
Simms was also ordered to pay Dawkins' legal costs of the application for summary judgment.
Dr. Randolph Williams represented Simms.
