Belize Airways Ltd v Tatum

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Duffus, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1979
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1979 CA 18
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1978
• Date: 01 November 1979

Court of Appeal

Blair-Kerr, P.; Duffus, J.A.; Inniss, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1978

Belize Airways Limited

and

Tatum

Contract - Damages — Quantum

Facts: Whether trial judge made excessive award to respondent when appellant repudiated her contract of employment — Whether trial judge made inadequate award — Whether trial judge should have deducted earnings of respondent as a seamstress from the amount awarded her — Whether court can entertain point not expressed in Notice of Appeal and not raised in the court below

Held: It is difficult to cite the findings in this case as the President's judgment is missing and the 2 judges are not ad idem on the deduction of earning as a seamstress.

Duffus, J.A.

1 This is an action by the respondent Marilyn Tatum to recover damages against the appellant company for the repudiation of a contract made by the appellant company to employ the respondent as a trainee flight attendant.

2 The respondent had been interviewed, selected and appointed as a trainee flight attendant. The respondent accepted the appointment, resigned her job with Shell Belize Ltd. and made arrangements to proceed to Miami to take up her appointment in accord with her letter of appointment. She took in her passport to the appellant company to get her ticket and U.S.A. visa the appellant company then discovered that the respondent was a citizen of the Republic of Honduras and not a ‘Belizean’ i.e. a British subject living in Belize. Apparently the appellant company had committed themselves to the Air Transport Licensing Authority of Belize to employ only Belizeans and as a result the appellant company then repudiated the contract of employment and this action resulted.

3 In a carefully considered judgment the learned Chief Justice who heard the action held that the appellant company had repudiated the contract and were liable in damages to the respondent. The Chief Justice acting under the general rule of damages (as set in McGregor on Damages. 13th Ed. p. 10), i.e. that “The plaintiff is entitled to be placed in so far as money can do it, in the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed” assessed the damages at $4,000.00 The Chief Justice said, inter alias–

“What I must do, I think, is to assume that the plaintiff would have completed successfully the training and probationary periods so that upon completion she would have been a permanent flight attendant. After becoming that the contract could not properly have been determined by B.A.L. (the appellant company) without giving a month's notice or paying a month's salary of $600.00 U. S. in lieu of notice.”

4 The Chief Justice then found that the Respondent was entitled in damages to the remuneration she would have received during the training and probationary periods and to two months' salary as a permanent flight attendant.

5 On the evidence he found that the training period would amount to two months and the probationary period to three months, a total of five months at a salary of $200.00 per month plus an allowance of $12.00 a day for 150 days to cover the costs of meals and incidentals, a total of $2,800.00 plus $1,200 for two month salary at $600 a month. In all he...