Benoit Leriche v Francis Maurice
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carswell |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 8 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 25 of 2004 |
| Date | 30 January 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 8
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Sir Henry Brooke
[Delivered by Lord Carswell]
In 1991 the appellant Benoit Leriche and his wife decided to construct a dwelling house on their land at Mon Giraud, in the Quarter of Gros Islet, Saint Lucia. The appellant discussed the project with the respondent Francis Maurice, an architect and building contractor, in consequence of which he determined to proceed with the erection of a single-storey building containing four two-bedroom apartments. It was common case that the parties made an oral agreement on or about 6 September 1991 for the engagement of the respondent, but the major dispute in this case has been about the content of that agreement, concerning the terms on which he was engaged. The respondent claims that he was employed under a labour contract to supply the labour required to carry out the works for the agreed sum for the original works of $144,000. The appellant claims, on the other hand, that the respondent's engagement was limited to supervision of the construction of the works from the floor to the ring beam, for the sum of $28,000.
In the High Court Hariprashad-Charles J accepted the correctness of the respondent's case and made an award in his favour of $153,100 for the labour supplied less the amount already paid, and $1490.08 for the cost of tools, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of judgment until payment and a fixed sum of $15,000 for costs. The Court of Appeal (Redhead and Saunders JJA and Georges JA (Ag)) dismissed the appellant's appeal and also the cross-appeal brought by the respondent, with fixed costs of the appeal to the respondent of $1500.
Construction work commenced on 9 September 1991 and on 11 September the appellant and respondent met in the offices of the appellant's solicitors to discuss the reduction of their agreement to writing. On the following day 12 September 1991 the solicitors produced a draft agreement in writing providing for the respondent as contractor to carry out the works for the appellant as employer for the sum of $144,000. The respondent signed three copies of this agreement, but the appellant did not sign it. The appellant claims that the parties agreed on some variations to the works, witnessed by the fact that on 12 September 1991 the appellant's son signed an amended plan on his father's behalf.
Between September 1991 and the end of January 1992 the works proceeded, during which time the respondent paid out sums of money to the labourers working on site. The materials for construction of the house were purchased by the appellant. Between 29 January and 3 February 1992 the respondent was away from Saint Lucia, and on his return found that the appellant or his son had made some payments to the labourers. The respondent continued to supply his services until 18 March 1992, when he was asked by the appellant to leave the site, but he regarded this action of paying the labourers as a breach of contract on the appellant's part.
While the works were in progress the appellant's daughter Mrs Flavia Vilna Honora constructed a wooden canteen on the site. An issue arose with the local development control authority about her authority to do so. The respondent prepared a letter dated 26 February 1992 stating that the appellant had given his daughter (therein described as Miss Vilna Lericke) permission to erect the canteen, which was used solely to provide refreshments and food to the labourers working on site. The letter described the respondent as "the Contractor under a labour contract undertaking the construction of a building" on the site. The letter was signed by the respondent and also purported to be signed by the appellant and his wife and daughter. At the trial of the action the appellant claimed that the signatures of the appellant and his wife were forged by their daughter, but the judge rejected that claim as untrue and found that the signatures were genuine.
The respondent engaged a quantity surveyor Mr Desmond Sealy to value the work carried out on site by the labour employed by the respondent. He prepared an interim valuation as at 11 February 1992 and a final valuation as at 17 March 1992. In the latter he valued the work at a total of $196,600. He also referred in his valuation to a quantity of sheets of plywood and sheets of lumber used for formwork which were present on site and which were said to have been damaged as a result of use on the project, but did not specify any sum of money to represent the value of the materials or of such damage.
During the course of the contract works the appellant paid the respondent sums totalling $43,500.
By writ of summons issued on 29 May 1992 the respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant for the balance which he claimed to be due under the contract. In the statement of claim he sought payment of (a) the value of the works, $196,600 less the amounts paid (b) $6541, the value of the plywood and lumber (c) $1490.08, the value of tools brought on to site by the respondent, which the appellant refused to allow him to remove (d) $1000, the cost of the valuer's report (e) general damages.
The respondent obtained judgment in default of defence in 1994, but this was subsequently set aside in April 1995 and the appellant was given leave to defend. A preliminary submission on the part of the appellant was heard by the trial judge in July 2000. She dismissed the appellant's application, giving written reasons on 18 September 2000, and the point at issue has not formed part of the appeal before the Board.
The trial of the action took place in May 2002. The judge gave her decision with brief reasons on 1 July 2002 and awarded the respondent (a) the sum of $153,100, being $196,600, the cost of the work, less $43,500, the amount previously paid (b) $1490.08, the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keisha Baker-Villaroel v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...costs of the claim calculated on the basis of the total compensation recovered inclusive of interest. Relying on Leriche v. Maurice [2008] UKPC 8, I have calculated prescribed costs on the total value of damages plus interest (that is to say, 60000+4005+5371.23+ 379.24= 69,755.47) to be Co......
-
Mohammed et Al v Singh
...of Judicature Act In making this award (below), I bore in mind the recent Privy Council decision of Leriche v Maurice [ Leriche v Maurice [2008] UKPC 8] which stated that costs is calculated on the total claim, inclusive of interest ORDER 35. It is ordered that the defendant do pay to the f......
-
Harkin v Commissioner of Police
...of origin, colour, or ethnic or national origins’ (section 2(2)(a)(i)). 20 The Privy Council's observations in Thompson v Dental Board [2008] UKPC 8, upon which the Respondent's counsel relied, make the practical and legally compelling point that section 6(9) is only engaged by a complaint ......
-
Harkin v Commissioner of Police
...The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Caines v Public Service CommissionBDLR [2008] Bda LR 25 Thompson v Dental BoardUNK [2008] UKPC 8 O'Malley v Simpson Sears LtdUNK [1985] 2 SCR 536 Janzen v Platy Enterprises LtdUNK [1989] 1 SCR 1252 First Nations Child and Family Caring S......
-
Litigation
...by the laws of England and Wales: Brunei LNG Sdn Bhd v Interbeton BV (1996) 14 Const LJ 117 [Brunei Ct App]. 1283 Leriche v Maurice [2008] UKPC 8 at [17] (Lord Carswell). Interest under the Senior Courts Act will not be applicable in respect of a period of time during which interest already......