[1] stephen Adams Claimant v [1] Mustique Company Ltd Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Thom J.
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2013
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2013] ECSC J0411-6
• Date: 11 April 2013
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO: SVGHCV2010/0397

[2013] ECSC J0411-6

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CLAIM NO: SVGHCV2010/0397

[1] stephen Adams

Claimant

and

[1] Mustique Company Ltd.

Defendant

Thom J.

1 Mr. Stephen Adams is a former member of the Royal Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force. He served on the Island of Mustique as a Sergeant of Police during the period 21^st May 1979 to 28^th Febmary 1981. He was then employed by the Mustique Company (the Company) as Chief Security Officer until August 2009. When Mr. Adams assumed the post of Chief Security Officer he was provided with living quarters ("Unit J") owned by the Company.

2 On the 19^th day of December 1996 Mr. Adams applied to the Company to purchase a parcel of land pursuant to section 1 of Appendix IV of the Mustique Company Limited Act 1989 (the 1989 Act). His application was not successful. On December 26, 2007, Mr. Adams wrote again to the Board of Directors of the Company requesting to purchase a parcel of land. He also wrote to the Managing Director of the Company on May 19, 2009 and on August 22, 2009.

3 By letter dated August 27, 2009, the Company informed Mr. Adams that his application was not approved. Mr. Adams was also informed that he would not be permitted to remain in Unit J after his retirement.

4 Mr. Adams being dissatisfied with the Company's decision instituted these proceedings in which he seeks the following reliefs:

• (a) A prohibitory injunction preventing the Company from evicting him from Unit J until determination of the matter.

• (b) A mandatory order compelling the Company to grant him a lease of a parcel of land on the Island of Mustique pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Mustique Company Act No. 48 of 2002.

• (c) Alternatively, a declaration that he has a life interest in Unit J pursuant to Section 12 (i) and (ii) of the Mustique Company Act No. 48 of 2002.

5 The Company in it defence contends that Mr. Adams is not entitled to the reliefs sought having regard to the effect of the statutory provisions in the Mustique Company Act No. 48 of 2002. The Company did not make a counterclaim for possession.

ISSUES

• (1) Whether Section 1 (b) of the Mustique Company Act 2002 confers an absolute right on a qualified person to be granted a lease.

• (2) Whether Unit J is within the definition of "Company owned family dwellings" as set out in Section 12 (i) of Appendix IV of the Mustique Company Act 2002.

• (3) Whether Section 12 confers an absolute right of a life tenancy to "a qualified individual" who elects not to purchase a lease.

ISSUES

EVIDENCE

7 Mr. Adams testified on his own behalf. He called no witnesses. Mr. Adams testified that he resides at Amos Vale on the Island of Saint Vincent and he also resides at Lovell Village on the Island of Mustique. In 1996 having lived and worked on the Island of Mustique for fifteen (15) years, he applied to the Company to lease a lot of land behind theMustique Church in Lovell Village in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act. The Managing Director at the time, Mr. Brian Alexander responded advising him that the area he requested to purchase was outside of the Development Plan. He subsequently pointed out an area in Lovell Village to Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander consulted with Mr. Cardinal Simon, the Chairman of the Mustique Indigenous People Association (MIPA) and they agreed the land could be developed and sold in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act to persons who qualified. Five lots were surveyed and distributed but he did not receive one of the five lots.

8 In December 2007 he wrote to the Chairman and members of the Board of the Company requesting to purchase a parcel of land. He did not receive a response. In May 2009 he wrote to the Managing Director concerning his request to purchase a parcel of land. He again wrote to the Managing Director on August 22, 2009. On August 27, 2009 the Managing Director responded to him indicating that his application was not approved. Further section 12 (i) of the Mustique Company Limited Act 2000 (the 2002 Act) did not give him a right to remain in the accommodation built by the Company for its employees.

9 Mr. Brian Alexander the former Managing Director and Mr. Pritchard the current Managing Director of the Company testified on behalf of the Company. Mr. Alexander testified that he was resident on Mustique since 1968. He worked part-time with the Company and in 1979 he was appointed Managing Director. He held that position until 2008 when he retired. He now serves as a consultant to the Company.

10 Mr. Alexander further testified that the term "Company owned family dwelling" which is not defined in the Act has a specific meaning and referred to certain specific houses. These were the houses built by Mr. Colin Tennant for the indigenous people who were relocated from Endeavour Point to Lovell Village. Unit J is not one of those houses. When the Company commenced development of Mustique in 1968–1969, hundreds of workers from Saint Vincent were recruited to work on Mustique. Several living quarters were constructed for those workers. Unit J is one of those living quarters.

11 It was always made clear to Mr. Adams that Unit J was not a Company owned family dwelling but an employee housing unit. Unit J is urgently needed for staff accommodation. There is a shortage of staff accommodation.

12 Mr. Alexander denied that he gave any commitment to Mr. Adams that he would be sold a parcel of land since he had no authority to do so. It was for the Board to make the decision in relation to all sale of land. In doing so, the Board would consult with MIPA. While the Board valued the recommendations of MIPA, the Board always made the final decision. There has always been more applications to purchase land than land available for distribution.

13 Mr. Roger Pritchard in his testimony stated that in May 2009 he received a letter from Mr. Adams in which he claimed to have a legal right to purchase a lot of land or to remain in his present quarters for the remainder of his lifetime. He received a similar letter from Mr. Adams in August 2009. He discussed the matter with the Board of Directors and the Consultant Mr. Alexander. The application was not approved by the Board. There are no lots available for purchase in Lovell Village.

SUBMISSIONS

14 Mrs. Kay Bacchus-Browne submitted that based on the evidence before the Court, Mr. Adams has satisfied all of the requirements of sections 1 (b) and 12 (i) of Appendix IV of the 2002 Act. Unit J which Mr. Adams occupies is situated within Lovell Village and is a company owned family dwelling within the meaning of section 12 (i). While company owned family dwelling is not defined in the 2002 Act, it does not refer to the houses built by Mr. Colin Tennant as those houses were either unavailable or demolished by the time of the enactment of the 1989 Act when the term was first introduced in legislation relating to Mustique. The Collin Tennant buildings fell within section 11 while Unit J and other units constructed at that time fell within section 12.

15 Mrs. Bacchus-Browne further submitted that the provisions of section 5 of Appendix IV of the 1989 Act which is headed "Social Development Plan" required the Company to buildaccommodations for its permanent employees. Once those accommodations were built in Lovell Village they would be regarded as Company owned family dwellings.

16 Mrs. Bacchus-Browne further submitted that once a person qualified under Appendix IV the person has a right to be leased a parcel of land in Lovell Village. The Company has no discretion in the matter. The 2002 Act does not provide any procedure for the Company to follow as the Company has no discretion in the matter. Section 12 gives the person who qualifies the option of getting a lease or remaining in his dwelling for a lifetime. Where the Company does not grant a lease to a person who has qualified for a lease they must give a compelling justification for not doing so.

17 Mrs. Bacchus-Browne further submitted that while Mr. Adams is not a party to the Agreement between the Company and the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Agreement having been given the force of law by Act of Parliament Mr. Adams can maintain an action for breach of the Agreement. The principle of legitimate expectation applies. The Company must be held to a standard akin to a public authority, they must act fairly, consistently and with transparency —Gerald Joseph v Eulie Baptiste: Michel Magloire v The Judicial and Legal Services Commission and the Attorney-General (SLUHCV No. 0372/2005); Lennox Linton v The Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda No. 0354 of 2007; and Next Level Engineering Ltd v The Attorney-General et al ANUHCV 2006/0283. The Company has dealt unfairly with Mr. Adams in that:

• (1) The Company took years to respond to Mr. Adams.

• (2) There is no clear procedure for approving or not approving the sale of land to qualified persons.

• (3) The claim of the Company that Unit J is needed for other staff is not sufficient reason for refusing to grant a lease since there is land available at Grand Bay for staff.

• (4) The zoning plan shows three separate areas for staff housing and space is available there.

• (5) The Company gave a lease to one Mrs. Cadet for four times the stipulated size after they refused to grant Mr. Adams a lease.

18 Mr. P.R. Campbell Q.C. submitted that the Mustique Act is a Private Act not a Public Act. The provisions are specific to the locality of Mustique and they primarily give statutory force to contracts between the Company and the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (the Government). In interpreting the provisions of the Act the Court ought to apply the principles of contract law rather than the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. The question the Court must ask is what did the...