Historic Beacon Point Anguilla Ltd Ronda Hodge v Carl Webster
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | Innocent, J |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | AI 2020 HC 29 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2016/0054 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
| Date | 03 November 2020 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
A.D. 2020
CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2016/0054
Ms. Paulette Harrigan, Paulette Harrigan's Chambers of counsel for the Claimants
Mr. Devin Hodge, Astaphan's Chambers of counsel for the Defendant
Claim for personal injuries — Assault and battery — Nuisance — Smoke escaping from adjoining and nearby lands — Trespass to land — Quantum of damages — Assessment and measure of damages — Counterclaim — Claim for personal injuries — Damages for personal injuries — Claim for Nuisance — Assessment of Damages for nuisance — Injunctive relief — Mandatory injunction — Expert Medical Evidence — Medical practitioner — Medical Report — Section 13 Evidence Act — Admissibility of expert report — Practice and procedure — Civil Procedure Rules Parts 8.9 (3), 10.6, 32.6
Innocent, J.: The first-named claimant, Historic Beacon Point Anguilla Ltd. (‘Historic Beacon’) is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act, and is the registered proprietor of certain lands situated at Island Habour, Anguilla, and more particularly described as Registration Section East Central Block 89218B Parcel 38 (‘Parcel 38’). At the material time Historic Beacon owned and operated a farm on Parcel 38.
The second-named claimant, Mrs. Ronda Hodge (‘Mrs. Hodge’) is a food vendor and farmer and is one of the directors and shareholders of Historic Beacon. The other director and shareholder of Historic Beacon is Mr. Maxwell Carty (‘Mr. Carty’).
The defendant Mr. Carl Webster (‘Mr. Webster’) is the registered proprietor of certain lands situate at Island Habour, Anguilla, and more particularly described as Registration Section East Central Block 89218B Parcel 41 (‘Parcel 41’) and Block 89218B Parcel 210 (‘Parcel 210’). Mr. Webster's home is located on Parcel 210.
Mr. Webster also claims to be the caretaker of certain “family land” situated in close proximity to Parcel 38 and more particularly described as Registration Section East Central Block 89218B Parcel 39 (‘Parcel 39’). Title to Parcel 39 is registered in the names of Hermina Webster and Edris Noreen Webster as trustees and who are alleged to be Mr. Webster's aunts.
Historic Beacon claims damages against Mr. Webster for trespass to Parcel 38 and a mandatory injunction restraining Mr. Webster, whether by himself, his servants or agents, from entering upon Parcel 38.
Mrs. Hodge claims damages against Mr. Webster for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained by her as a result of being unlawfully assaulted by Mr. Webster, and a mandatory injunction restraining Mr. Webster from assaulting, molesting, annoying or otherwise interfering with her or coming within 100 feet of her.
In support of the claim for assault and trespass, Mrs. Hodge alleged that on or about 10 th April 2016 she saw Mr. Webster on Parcel 38 running from the direction of the farm which is located on Parcel 38. According to Mrs. Hodge, Mr. Webster had unlawfully, and without the permission or consent of Historic Beacon, or any person authorised to give consent on behalf of Historic Beacon, entered upon Parcel 38.
Mrs. Hodge claimed that while she was proceeding along the road (‘Parcel 455’) which serves as an access to Parcel 38, she met Mr. Webster standing by a fence which separates Parcel 455 from Parcel 39. It appeared, according to Mrs. Hodge that Mr. Webster was on Parcel 39. Mrs. Hodge claims to have inquired from Mr. Webster his purpose for being on Parcel 38, whereupon, she claims, that Mr. Webster followed her as she walked towards the farm. Mrs. Hodge claims that Mr. Webster became belligerent and began uttering obscenities and abusive and threatening language to her.
Mrs. Hodge further alleged that while she was returning along the road Mr. Webster followed her along the opposite side of the fence that separated them, and continued his display of belligerent conduct, eventually threatening to kill her and feed her to the pigs. Mrs. Hodge alleged that Mr. Webster climbed over the fence and proceeded to assault her and beat her about the head with a pair of pliers.
Mr. Webster denied having trespassed on Parcel 38 and, that he assaulted and beat Mrs. Hodge. Mr. Webster admitted to standing near the fence on the adjoining property (Parcel 39) and that at no time did he enter upon Parcel 38. In fact, Mr. Webster claims that it was Mrs. Hodge who assaulted him and, it was during this assault on him that he sustained injuries to his head.
Mr. Webster, whose residence is located on Parcel 210, also claimed to have suffered loss and damage as a result of the nuisance caused by the farming practices engaged in by Historic Beacon on Parcel 38. Mr. Webster claimed that Historic Beacon is engaged in animal husbandry on Parcel 38 which included the rearing of livestock such as goats, pigs, chickens, ducks and rabbits. Mr. Webster alleged that Historic Beacon, in the course of carrying out its farming practices on Parcel 38, have engaged in the practice of frequent and prolonged burning of waste material in the preparation of animal feed. Mr. Webster claimed that the pungent and malodorous smoke generated by the burning of waste material blew in a westerly direction towards his residence.
In addition, Mr. Webster alleged that the smell generated from the animal faeces on Parcel 38 escaped therefrom and blew onto Parcel 210, causing discomfort to him and his family. Mr. Webster also complained that the animal noises that were at their highest in the early mornings, late afternoons and, occasionally in the night- time, caused disturbance and annoyance to him and his family.
Therefore, Mr. Webster alleged that he has been disturbed in the quiet use and enjoyment of his property by the nuisance created by Historic Beacon on Parcel 38. He therefore claimed damages against Historic Beacon for the alleged nuisance.
In addition, Mr. Webster claimed against Historic Beacon and Mrs. Hodge a mandatory injunction restraining them or either of them, whether by their servants and/or agents, from burning waste material, rearing livestock within 200 feet of Parcel 210, permitting livestock from entering or traversing the adjoining property being Parcel 39, and in any other way creating a nuisance as a result of the farming practices engaged in by them on Parcel 38.
Historic Beacon and Mrs. Hodge admitted that they cooked animal feed on Parcel 38 but denied that they engaged in prolonged and frequent burning of waste material, and that any smoke was generated thereby. Historic Beacon and Mrs. Hodge also denied that they engaged in imprudent farming practices, and had at all material times maintained the farm in good condition, and employed the best practices in crop and livestock farming. Therefore, they denied Mr. Webster's complaint of the malodorous scent emanating from the farm. In addition, they denied that the animals escaped onto Parcel 39 because the farm was fenced and the livestock were kept within an enclosed area.
The claimants admitted that Mr. Webster had indeed made several complaints to the Environmental Health Department and the Royal Anguilla Police Force (‘RAPF’) concerning the alleged nuisance. However, the claimants contended that the relevant authorities found that the claimants were not in breach of any laws or regulations while conducting their farming operations on Parcel 38.
It appears that the claimants also contended that Mr. Webster is not entitled to claim any relief in relation to Parcel 39 as he did not have title to the same and was not authorized to act on behalf of the registered proprietors thereof.
One of the issues arising for determination in the present case is whether Mr. Webster trespassed on Parcel 38 on 10 th April 2016. The court, having heard the evidence of the parties in relation to the question of the alleged trespass by Mr. Webster on Parcel 38, and the court having observed the demeanor of the respective witnesses, has arrived at the following conclusions.
It appears, having regard to the evidence given in respect of the relative locations of Parcel 38 and Parcel 39, and the evidence in relation to the fencing that separates Parcel 38 from Parcel 39, it would be fair to conclude that Mr. Webster had the ability to enter upon Parcel 38. Indeed, Mr. Webster, by his own admission, testified as to his belief that he was entitled to enter upon Parcel 39.
It was also made to appear to the court that Mr. Webster, notwithstanding his insistence that he was entitled to enter upon Parcel 39 in his capacity as what he described as the caretaker thereof, provided no evidence to substantiate that fact. Mr. Webster proffered the explanation that he had gone onto Parcel 39 to repair the fence. That explanation seemed unlikely in the absence of any explanation as to why Mr. Webster would enter upon Parcel 39 to repair a fence of his own volition without any express authority to do so. Therefore, Mr. Webster's claim to be the caretaker of Parcel 39 provided no justification or plausible excuse for being on Parcel 39.
The court is also mindful of the fact, that in light of Mr. Webster's evidence regarding the alleged nuisance on Parcel 38, it seems plausible that he may very well have had a reason for entering upon Parcel 38.
In any event, it is the court's view that much depended on the relative credibility of Mrs. Hodge and Mr. Webster. The court is inclined to accept the evidence of Mrs. Hodge that she saw Mr. Webster on Parcel 38.
Mr. Webster challenged Mrs. Hodge's evidence on the basis of her ability to have seen him on Parcel 38 owing to the foliage located at the entrance of the access road which obscured a portion of the farm located on Parcel 38, including the area...
To continue reading
Request your trial