Smith v Air Bvi Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Satrohan Singh, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 October 1991
• Neutral Citation: AI 1991 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 9 of 1991
• Date: 17 October 1991

High Court (Civil)

Singh, J.

No. 9 of 1991

Smith

and

Air Bvi Ltd et al

Miss Joyce Kentish, Miss Paulette Harrigan with her for the Plaintiff.

Mr I.D. Mitchell, Miss Palmavon Webster with him for the Defendant.

Tort - Damages — Wrongful dismissal — Whether wrongful dismissal of plaintiff, station manager of the first defendant was induced by actions of the second defendant — Whether plaintiff given one month's notice in lieu of a month's salary and therefore not wrongfully dismissed.

Satrohan Singh, J.

1 The plaintiff Jasmine Smith brings this suit against the first named defendant Air B.V.I. Ltd, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal of her from her employment with the first named defendant as Station Manager in the island of Anguilla on or about November 15, 1989.

2 The plaintiff also sues the second named defendant herein, Malliouhana Travel and Tours Ltd, for damages for wrongfully procuring a breach of the plaintiff's contract with the first named defendant, and for wrongfully interfering with the plaintiff's contract of employment made on or about June 9, 1989 with the first named defendant with intent to induce a breach of same.

3 As regards the case against the first named defendant, the plaintiff pleads an oral agreement made on or about June 9, 1989 whereby this defendant employed the plaintiff as Station Manager for a term certain, namely, from July 1st 1989 to June 30th 1991 at a monthly salary of $900.US and perquisites of life insurance, medical insurance, free travel on Air B.V.I. Ltd and other carriers and travel allowance at $75.US per month. The plaintiff alleges that by letter dated November 1, 1989 the first named defendant wrongfully and without cause determined the plaintiff's aforesaid employment with effect from November 15, 1989 as a result of which she suffered loss of earnings from November 16, 1989 to June 30, 1991, $17,550.US and loss of travel allowance for the said period $1462.50 US which sums she claims as special damages.

4 As regards the case against the second named defendant, the plaintiff alleges that by letter dated July 29, 1989, this defendant, with intent to procure a breach of the plaintiff's contract of employment with the first named defendant and with the object of securing for themselves the management and control of the first named defendant's operations in Anguilla, wrongfully induced the first named defendant to commit a breach of its contract of employment with the plaintiff, referred to above, thereby causing the plaintiff to incur loss and suffer the damages mentioned above.

5 The first named defendant admits an agreement between itself and the plaintiff, says it was partly oral and partly to be inferred from the conduct of parties but, denies it was for a term certain as alleged by the plaintiff or for any term certain at all. This defendant also denies that under the agreement the plaintiff was entitled to the perquisites of life insurance, medical insurance or free travel on Air B.V.I. and other carriers but admits that the plaintiff was entitled to a monthly travel allowance of $75US. This defendant then sets out in its defence the circumstances under which the plaintiff performed the duties of its Station Manager in Anguilla. It reads thus:

• (i) By a written agreement dated the 12th day of January 1985, the first-named defendant appointed the second named defendant as General Sales Agent for the first named defendant (which agreement shall be referred to at the trial for its full terms and effect). This agreement vested in the second named defendant responsibility for the operations and management of the first named defendant's airline business in Anguilla. At this time the plaintiff was manager of the second named defendant.

• (ii) In or about the month of December 1988, the first named defendant proposed to the second named defendant that a Station Manager be appointed by the first named defendant for the first named defendant's Station airline business in Anguilla.

• (iii) On the 9th day of June 1989 at a meeting held in the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands at which the plaintiff was present in her capacity as Manager of the second named defendant the first named defendant and the second named defendant agreed in principle to the appointment of a Station Manager for the first named defendant's operations in Anguilla. Such appointment was to take place with effect from 1 July 1989.

• (iv) During said meeting it was agreed that a suitable candidate should be recruited from the second named defendant's company or be someone recommended by the second named defendant as being so suitable.

• (v) The plaintiff continued as manager of the second named defendant up to 30 ^th June 1989 and as part of the plaintiff's duties as manager the plaintiff was required to oversee the second named defendant's obligations to the first named defendant under the said agreement of 12 January 1985.

• (vi) On the 29th day of June 1989, the plaintiff tendered her resignation in writing to the second named defendant with effect from 1 July 1989 but continued to perform the duties which the plaintiff had previously performed in her capacity as manager of the second named defendant in relation to the said agreement of 12 January, 1985.

• (vii) The first named defendant paid the plaintiff a salary of US$900.00 per month and a travel allowance of US$75.00 per month as of 31st July 1989 for her aforesaid duties. Prior to 1 July 1989 the effective date of the plaintiff's aforesaid resignation she was paid her monthly salary by the second named defendant.

• (viii) The plaintiff performed the duties of Station Manager at the first named defendant's operations in Anguilla on a month to month basis from 1 July 1989, up to 15 November 1989.

6 In its defence the first named defendant admits receipt of the letter dated 29 ^th July, 1989 from the second named defendant as alleged by the plaintiff but denies the allegations made by the plaintiff against the second named defendant as to the reason why that letter was sent.

7 This defendant denies the wrongful determination of the defendant's employment as alleged by the plaintiff and states that as a result of the first named defendant setting about on a plan of reorganisation, the plaintiff was to be transferred to St. Maarten as Station Manager of the first named defendant's operations, she was to be given increased monthly salary of $1200.US together with travel allowance of $75.US and living accommodation at the expense of this defendant and that at all times she was to remain in the employ of this defendant. This defendant says this transfer was contained in the letter of November 1st 1989 which letter the plaintiff alleges determined her employment.

8 The defence continues, that in order to enable the arrangements of the plaintiff's transfer to be concluded, this defendant suggested that the plaintiff took a paid vacation. The defence says that the plaintiff then requested in writing and was granted paid vacation from November 15, 1989 to December 1, 1989 but despite many oral requests made on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff failed to return to the employment of the defendant. This defendant accordingly denies any breach of contract on its part.

9 As an alternative plea, the first named defendant contends that the plaintiff, when she failed to take up her transferred appointment in St. Marten with the defendant or to communicate with the defendant to have a review of the terms and conditions of the transfer, she failed or refused to take any or any reasonable steps to mitigate any loss or damage suffered by her.

10 The second named defendant in its defence denies that its letter of July 29, 1989 was intended for the purposes alleged by the plaintiff. They say that by virtue of a written agreement dated December 12, 1985, the first named defendant appointed them as their General Sales Agent for the island of Anguilla.

11 Apart from her claim for the special damages already mentioned, the plaintiff also claims exemplary damages against both defendants by reason of the following conduct which the plaintiff alleges against them.

• 1. As regards the conduct of the second named defendant the plaintiff repeats paragraph six herein.

  • ii The second named defendant calculated that the profits to be made by them upon assuming the management and control of operations in Anguilla for the first named defendant would be likely to exceed the damages at risk by reason of their tortuous actions.

  • iii The first named defendant in order that they maintain good relations with the second named defendant and thereby gurantee the continued support of the second named defendant in the promotion and expansion of the first named defendant's services within the island of Anguilla wrongfully and unlawfully terminated the plaintiff's contract of employment.

  • iv. The first named defendant calculated that the profits to be made by reason of the second named defendant's promotion of their company within the island aforesaid would be likely to exceed the damages at risk by reason of their breach of contract aforesaid.

12 The plaintiff also claims costs and other relief as the court saw fit. In support of her claim, the plaintiff gave viva voce testimony and with the Agreement of both sides, a bundle of documents was tendered into evidence.

13 From the evidence given by the plaintiff and from the documents in evidence I make these findings of facts which are more or less not disputed:

14 For seven years prior to July 1st 1989 i.e. from the coming into being of the second named defendant, the plaintiff was employed by the second named defendant as its manager. In January 1985 the two defendants herein entered into an agreement whereby it was agreed that the second named defendant:

• 1. Will be the General Agent for Air B.V.I. in Anguilla.

• 2...