Supreme Court
Action No. 10 of 1983
11th January, 1984
Moe, C.J.

Mr. N. Dujon for the Plaintiff
Mr. E. Flowers for the Defendant

Practice and Procedure - Summary Procedure - Whether procedure available where claims are not liquidated or are over the prescribed amount.

J U D G M E N T

In these proceedings the Plaintiff issued a Writ pursuant to the Summary Procedure provided for by section 89 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, Chapter 5 in which he alleged he suffered injuries, loss and damage occasioned by reason of the negligence of the Defendants, their servants or agents.

Indorsed on the Writ is the Statement of Claim with the Heading of Statement of Claim followed by averments in five paragraphs. There is then a Heading Particulars of Injury and these are stated. Then there is paragraph 6 in which negligence on behalf of the Defendants, their servants or agents is alleged. Then follows a Heading Particulars of Negligence followed by six (a) - (f) instances of negligence. Then the Statement of Claim concludes in the following form:

Particulars of Special Damage

Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff's Writ is bad. He contends that the Action brought by the Plaintiff is one in which general damages may be awarded where the Court has to quantify the amount to be awarded. The Action should therefore be brought under the general or extended procedure of the Court. He contends that a claim brought under the Summary Procedure provided by section 89 (ibid) must be for a liquidated amount. He contends further that the Plaintiff claims a sum of $1,000 without giving particulars of that claim as is required by the relevant Rule Order 74 Rule 13. Finally, that by virtue of his claim for interest, the Plaintiff is in truth and fact claiming a sum in excess of $1,000.00.

The Plaintiff submits that the Writ is in keeping with the requirements of Summary Procedure provided for. He has given particulars of his claim - of negligence, of the injuries, and how his damages are arrived at. That he has to suffer any prejudice which arises by bringing his action in this manner.

Section 89 in subsection (1) mandates the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction in respect of certain actions in accordance with the summary procedure prescribed. These actions by subsection (2) are "All Actions -

(a) in which the debt or damages claimed or the value of the matter or thing in dispute does not exceed the sum of five hundred dollars, or

(b) in which, in the case of the recovery of land, either the value of the land or the yearly rent payable in respect thereof does not exceed the sum of five hundred dollars, or

(c) in which, in the case of an easement or licence, either the value of the land on, through, over or under which such easement or licence is claimed or the yearly rent reserved thereout, does not exceed the sum of five hundred dollars,

shall be instituted, heard and determined in accordance with that procedure."

Thus, one of the Actions to be dealt with according to the summary procedure is one where the damages claimed is not more than $1,000. What is essential to the jurisdiction is that the claim is limited to $1,000.

The provision does not mean that where a Plaintiff is entitled to or likely to prove damages in excess of, $1,000.00 he may not use the summary procedure. On the contrary, by the Rules of Court regulating the procedure, there is recognition that he may do so. Order 74 Rule 3(2) provides -

"If the Plaintiff has a cause of action for a sum exceeding five hundred dollars and he desires his claim to be tried in accordance with the summary procedure of the court, he may abandon any sum in excess of one thousand dollars and give notice of such abandonment in his claim and thereupon he shall, upon proving his case recover an amount not exceeding one thousand dollars."

Reference may also be made to the forms in which Order 74 Rule 2(2) has set out claims may be. I would refer to Appendix P Part II of Supreme Court Rules No. 6 Assault and Battery and No. 7 False Imprisonment, in both of which damages would be quantified by the Court, but in these forms the Plaintiff states how much he claims. No. 8 Malicious Prosecution shows that the amount claimed is not necessarily limited to the amount of special damages. In the example given special damages amount to $170.00 and the Plaintiff claims $400. Finally, I would refer to No. 13 Claim based on Negligence.

I find that the Writ is in keeping with the requirements of the summary procedure of the Court. The inclusion of a claim for interest on the damages awarded does not invalidate the Writ. By section 182 of Supreme Court Ordinance, CAP 5, in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages, the Court may award interest on the whole or part of the debt or damages.

I accordingly rule that the Writ is in order.

----------OO----------