Crabbe v Scatliffe

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1993
• Neutral Citation: VG 1993 HC 6
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Docket Number: No. 107 of 1990
• Date: 05 February 1993

High Court

Bishop, J.

No. 107 of 1990

Crabbe

and

Scatliffe

Appearances:

Mr. J. Husbands for plaintiff

Mr. S. Bennet for defendant

Practice and Procedure - Award of costs — Fight between two parties — Plaintiff injured and suffered loss and damage — Defendant convicted by Magistrates Court — Magistrate made award for compensation for damaged spectacles — Refusal of Magistrate to entertain claim for further loss suffered — Whether Magistrate adopted wrong procedure — Civil action instituted at time case decided — Whether there was an adequate or proper hearing on the issue of compensation.

Bishop, J.

1 The claim is for, damages far assault and battery and it arose out of an altercation between the parties who were, at the time, apparently competing for the affection of the same man.

2 The solicitor for the plaintiff, Yvonne Crabbe, filed a Writ of Summons with Statement of Claim endorsed thereon, an the 30th July, 1990. No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the defendant Coleen Scatliffe, and on the 7th December, 1990, acting under the provisions of order 13 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, the plaintiff's solicitor entered interlocutory judgment against the defendant for damages to be assessed and costs.

3 The matter came on for hearing on the 4th December, 1992 and on that occasion an adjournment was granted at the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff was out of the territory pursuing studies.

4 On the 8th January, 1993 the court heard the evidence of Yvonne Crabbe. It was not contradicted or seriously challenged that Coleen Scatliffe assaulted and beat her on the 7th March, 1990. The testimony revealed that the defendant left her work place not long after 2:00 p.m. following a telephone conversation initiated by the plaintiff, went to the office where the plaintiff was then working, and there engaged her in a fight that necessitated the intervention of the plaintiff's co-workers to bring it to an end. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a laceration over her left eye. For the purposes of this application it matters not whether the defendant received as good as she gave. The plaintiff was treated at Peebles Hospital and sutures were necessary. They were removed about eight days later.

5 At the time of their fight, the plaintiff was wearing spectacles which were broken as a consequence. Additionally, her dress was damaged in that two buttons were torn off and blood from the cut over her eye spilled on it. The plaintiff testified that she would not wear that dress again, but the court did not have the benefit of seeing the dress to decide for itself whether or not it could be used again if the buttons were replaced and any stains removed.

6 There was evidence that remained unchallenged by cross-examination, that a criminal complaint was brought by the police against Coleen Scatliffe, and that she was convicted by a magistrate of the offence of unlawful assault and battery on Yvonne Crabbe. What occurred in court, if indeed she was convicted is pertinent and I shall refer to the events shortly.

7 The following particulars of special damage were alleged: (1) medical expenses $17.00 (2) emergency room charges $5.00 (3) a lady's dress $35.00 (4) a pair of eye glasses and frames $80.00. Total $137.00. The last mentioned. claim was not...