Kathleen Jack-Payne v St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Co-operative Credit Union

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Richardson, M.
• Judgment Date: 18 September 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0918-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. SVGHCV 2023/0152
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)

Between:

Kathleen Jack-Payne

Claimant

and

St. Vincent and The Grenadines Police Co-Operative Credit Union

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0918-1

Before

Master Vernette S. Richardson (Ag)

CLAIM NO. SVGHCV 2023/0152

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL DIVISION)

Appearances:

Mr. Jomo Thomas for the Claimant

Ms. Patina Knights for the Defendant

RULING ON SPECIAL DAMAGES

1 Richardson, M. (AG): The issue is whether the claimant is entitled to special damages where they were not pleaded, or, in the alternative, directions for special damages.

2 The brief facts are: The claimant was injured during the course of her employment with the defendant on 22 ^nd September 2020. She filed a claim form on 22 ^nd September 2023 in respect of her personal injuries and one of her claims was for special damages. She did not plead nor particularize the special damages in her statement of case. However, she did exhibit six medical reports and reserved the right to rely on other medical reports.

3 On 11 ^th October 2023, the defendant filed an acknowledgement of service denying the claim and their intention to defend the claim. On 30 ^th October 2023, the defendant filed a notice of admission admitting liability and their wish to be heard on the issue of quantum at the assessment of damages stage. When the matter came up for directions on the assessment on 18 ^th July 2024, the parties agreed to enter into settlement discussions.

4 On 28 ^th April 2025, the parties informed the court that they have agreed the general damages and costs. However, the special damages were not agreed as they were claimed but not pleaded. On 20 ^th May 2025, counsel for the claimant requested to file submissions on whether or not the claimant is entitled to special damages in circumstances where they were not pleaded, or, in the alternative, directions for special damages. It was agreed counsel will file submissions. The claimant was ordered to file submissions by 19 ^th June 2025 and the defendant by 3 ^rd July 2025. Thereafter, the decision was reserved.

5 The general principle is that special damages must be strictly pleaded, particularised and proved. See Ilkiw v Samuels. 1 Diplock L.J opined: “… because everyone has accepted it as being the law for the last hundred years—that one can recover in an action only special damage which has been pleaded, and, of course, proved.”

6 McGregor on Damages 2 states:

“… Lord Goddard in British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] A.C. 185, 206 where he said: “In an action for personal injuries the damages are always divided into two main parts. First, there is what is referred to as special damage, which has to be specially pleaded and proved. This

consists of out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation.”

7 In the instant case, the claimant claimed special damages in her statement of case. However, the special damages were not pleaded nor particularised. Thus, applying the principle in the Ilkiw case, no sum can be recovered for special damages. In the claimant's submissions, the reason given for this failure was “through an unfortunate case of inadvertence, the claimant's special loss and damage were not itemized on (sic) her claim form.”

8 In Ilkiw case the claimant pleaded special damages in the sum of £77. However, he sustained special damages of about £2,000. Diplock L.J stated:

“This was not pleaded, and no application to amend the statement of claim to plead it could be made because of the agreement already arrived at the sum of £77 for special damages.” (Emphasis mine.)

Counsel, before the trial, had agreed to the sum of £77 for special damages.

9 “The overriding objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly”; Rule 1.1. Further, “it is the duty of the parties to help the court to further the overriding objective.”

10 The claimant has incurred expenses as a result of the defendant's negligence, for which the defendant has admitted liability. The defendant would have been aware that the claimant is seeking special damages albeit not aware of the amount. Medical reports were produced and it is reasonable to conclude some costs were incurred. The defendant therefore cannot be said to be caught off guard. I understand the defendant to be saying you have not pleaded, particularised and proved special damages therefore you are not entitled to recover this sum.

11 The claimant has advanced the argument that “where...