Supreme Court
Action No. 42 of 1982
5th November, 1982
Moe, Chief Justice

Mr Dean Lindo S.C. for the Plaintiff
Mr Glenn Godfrey for the Defendant

Contract of employment - Plaintiff working for Defendant without first entering into a contract of employment - whether Plaintiff entitled to claim salary for services rendered.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff claimed the sum of $193,200.00 as being arrears of salary due him for work done and services rendered by him as Hotel Manager of the defendant company at its request from 1973 to 1981 at a salary of $28,800.00 BZ per year having been paid certain sums during the years 1975 - 1979; alternately an equitable right in the business of the defendant company to the amount owed him. The defendant company admitted it employed the plaintiff as Hotel Manager but from January 1976 to April 1980. It denied any agreement to pay the plaintiff $28,000.00 per year but admitted an agreement to pay certain sums as from 1975 which have been paid. The defendant company counterclaimed for the return of certain chattels from the plaintiff or their value, damages for their detention, damages for conversion.

The plaintiff himself gave evidence that he had an agreement with the defendant company separate from one he had with Celi McCorkle, the Managing Director of the defendant company. The agreement with the defendant company was set out in the minutes of the Annual General meetings of the company and all the amounts due to him under that agreement have been paid to him. It must be noted at this point that the evidence relating to that agreement does not show any agreement to pay a salary of $28,000.00 per year at any time nor payment of any sums as set out in the statement of claim.

The plaintiff however asserted that it was by virtue of the agreement with Celi McCorkle that he went to work for the defendant company at the salary claimed. The question which arose for determination was whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and Celi McCorkle which can properly be attributed to the defendant company.

It was clear from the evidence that the plaintiff a citizen of the United States of America then a University student and Celi McCorkle, then Managing Director of the defendant company met when the plaintiff came here in May 1972. They visited each other between July 1972 and May 1973 when the plaintiff came to live in Belize. From that date he worked at the hotel owned by the defendant company but received no remuneration from the hotel. He had no work permit. He became secretary of the company in August 1973. He had his room at the Hotel, received meals from the Hotel and had a romance with Celi McCorkle. They were married in the USA in February 1974. In 1975 the plaintiff obtained status entitling him to work in Belize. He started to receive fees and salary after decision taken at the annual general meeting of the company held in November 1975.

The plaintiff asserted that he came to Belize in 1973 at the request Celi McCorkle to work with her in the management of the Hotel. They agreed that he would be compensated equal to what he would have been compensated had he remained in the USA. He had just graduated from the University of Houston with a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration. He declined an offer of employment in the USA at $1,500.00 US per month because of his agreement with Mrs. McCorkle. He went to work as a general manager of the hotel on the terms that he would in some manner be compensated either in cash or in some future holdings equal to his worth in the USA which he calculated to be $1,200.00 US per month and conveyed to Mrs. McCorkle. He worked for about two years being paid nothing principally because the hotel didn't have it to pay him but he understood he would be compensated at some future date. He gave evidence of receiving some kind of salary as from 1975 and stated sums set out in his statement of claim but which were not supported by the records as indicated above.

Mrs. McCorkle denied that there was an agreement between herself and the plaintiff that the plaintiff's value in the USA would be matched here in Belize. She said that there was this romance between them. When he came to Belize he did odds and ends around the hotel. After they got married he started to think about earning when the little girl was born in the late part of 1974. It was then they decided he would come into the business to help her and he would decide if he liked the work. They did not discuss salary until the next annual general meeting of the company.

I accepted Mrs. McCorkle's account; firstly her account was more consistent with the facts I found to be clear as indicated above. Secondly the plaintiff appeared unreliable, particularly in the light of the particulars he gave as to payments to him which were in no way near the true position. I found there was no agreement between
Mrs. McCorkle and the plaintiff that he would be paid by the hotel a salary of $1,200.00 as alleged in his statement of claim. There was therefore no agreement with Mrs. McCorkle, the managing director of the defendant company which can be attributed to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim therefore fails.

I also accepted Mrs. McCorkle's evidence that the chattels which the defendant admitted he removed from the hotel are the property of the defendant company. Added to those aspects of the plaintiff's unreliability referred to above was the fact that although he claims to have purchased the items in dispute, he didn't recognize some of the tools listed and wasn't sure whether in fact he bought some, didn't remember from whom he bought some and when confronted with an invoice to the Hotel in respect of some of the items accepted they probably belong to the Hotel.

The plaintiff admitted he has declined to give up the chattels after demand and still has them. The defendant is now asking for delivery up of the chattels rather than their value and will have an order accordingly. By the evidence the plaintiff has kept these items now about 11 months. The defendant is entitled to damages for their detention over that period. The defendant gave evidence as to the amount paid as rental of items such as the plaintiff has detained but there was claim for special damages. I allow an amount in general damages in the sum of $2,000.00. The defendant will have its costs.