The Appellants herein were the Plaintiffs in the court below, in CL 43/2017, an action against the Respondents in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on Leeward Highway, Providenciales, Turks and Caicos Islands on 21 December 2015. As previously stated, in a decision on an application for security for costs, at the time of the accident, the first named appellant (Ms. Defreitas) was a passenger in a car owned and driven by her husband, the second named appellant (Mr. Seymour). The first named respondent (Mr. Deane) was the driver of a truck involved in the accident with Mr. Seymour. That vehicle was owned by the second named respondent and being driven by Mr. Deane as their agent.
On 6 August 2019 an Amended Writ and Statement of Claim was filed and on 2 September 2019 an Amended Defence and Counterclaim was filed. The claims were generally for personal injury and loss occasioned by the accident.
A trial on liability only commenced before Gruchot J. in November of 2022 and was continued into 2023. On 23 November 2023 the Learned Trial Judge dismissed the Appellants claim and held Mr. Seymour 100% liable for causing the accident. Liability was entered for the Respondents on the counterclaim and the matter was to be listed for an assessment of damages hearing. There is affidavit evidence from the security for costs application that the Respondents are seeking the sum of $4,485.00 in damages. The Appellants were also ordered to pay the Respondents costs to be taxed on the standard basis if not agreed. This court had ordered security for costs in the sum of $50,000.00.
The Order of the Trial Court’s judgment, filed 11 December 2023, is the subject of this Appeal. The Appellants notice of appeal cites 11 (eleven) grounds of appeal challenging the factual and legal findings of the Learned Judge.
Held: The Appellants appeal is dismissed in its entirety and the decision of the Learned Trial Judge is affirmed. In their skeleton arguments, the Appellants summarized the grounds of appeal as follows:
i. Gruchot J. erred in considering documents not in evidence;
ii. Gruchot J. erred in inconsistently relying on the First Respondent’s evidence;
iii. Gruchot J. erred in disregarding evidence before him;
iv. The Liability Decision contained inconsistencies within itself which Gruchot J. failed to reconcile;
v. Gruchot J. erred in finding that apportionment of negligence could not be determined; and
vi. Gruchot J. erred in finding no claim for vicarious liability could be made out on the pleadings.
With the exception of grounds 1, 7 and 8 of the grounds of appeal and the summarized grounds i, iv and v in their skeleton submissions, the grounds of appeal largely consist of attacks on the findings of fact of the learned trial judge.
The Learned Trial Judge framed what can be referred to as the uncontroversial facts and the position of the respective parties at the start of his decision. The learned trial judge goes on throughout the remainder of his 106 paragraph decision to make certain findings of facts. It is certain of those findings of facts which have been attacked in this appeal. In addition, the appellants complain that the learned trial judge also made certain errors of law.
The Appellants have not, nor has this Court, been able to identify a mistake in the judge’s evaluation of the evidence that is sufficiently material to undermine his conclusions. The Judge properly analysed the entirety of the evidence in the case before him.
The complaint of inconsistent reliance on the evidence of the first respondent is also not sustainable having regard to the fact that the learned trial judge did in fact consider the inconsistencies.
The Learned Trial Judge also adequately dealt with each of the issues raised in his decision. All of his conclusions are based on the totality of the evidence and are conclusions which can reasonably be drawn from that evidence.
As to contributory negligence, the summary of the grounds of appeal asserts that the Judge was wrong to find that contributory negligence was not pleaded. It is entirely unclear what the Appellants were asserting in this ground. In any event, the ultimate submission on this ground was that had the learned trial judge have come to the only conclusion on the evidence which was available to him which was that the respondent was at fault than the finding of apportionment would have been unnecessary. The learned trial judge did not so find, he found the Appellant Seymour 100% liable for the accident. Further I agree with the submissions of the Respondents that as this was a defence and counterclaim matter, the plaintiffs now appellants should have pleaded contributory negligence. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed.
As to the ground pertaining to vicarious liability. Having regard to the learned trial judge’s decision that the Appellant Seymour was 100% liable for the accident means that the issue as to the vicarious liability of the second respondent simply does not arise.