Bradley et Al v Belisle

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Date: 19 April 2000
• Docket Number: 517 of 1997

High Court

Shanks, J.

517 of 1997

Bradley et al

and

Belisle

Appearances:

Mr. Oscar Sabido, S.C. for the plaintiff.

Mr. Elrington, S.C. for the defendant.

Injunction - Application for an injunction — Land — Trespass — Whether damages were an adequate remedy — Finding that in this case, where the plaintiff had to some degree acquiesced in the invasion of his legal rights, the court would exercise its discretion to grant damages instead of an injunction.

Shanks, J.

1 I heard submissions from Mr. Sabido and Mr. Elrington on 3 April 2000 on the question of remedies in this case following my judgment on liability dated 5 April, 2000 which was delivered in writing to the parties.

2 Mr. Elrington for the defendant submits that I should not grant an Injunction or declaration in this case as a matter of discretion but that I should order damages to be paid on the basis of an assessment of the value of the land by a valuer appointed by the parties or the Registrar as was ordered by Sir George Brown in a matter of discretion but that I should order damages to be paid on the basis of an assessment of the value of the land by a valuer appointed by the parties or the Registrar as was ordered by Sir George Brown in a recent Belizean Case, Moody v. Jones (1 63194).

3 Mr. Sabido for the plaintiffs says that it would be inappropriate to make such an order here because the 13 —foot strip is now quite valuable and the plaintiffs cannot be compensated with a small money payment and because It would not be oppressive to the defendant if she had to remove the fence, which can be done quite easily. In Moody v. Jones Sir George Brown ordered that damages be paid rather than an injunction granted in a case where, as far as I can judge, the land in question was of significant value, but it is true that in that case the judge found that there would have been a large degree of hardship for Ms. Jones in having to remove herself from a long established residence. Nothing like that applies here and I would not therefore refuse an injunction on the ground of oppression to the defendants. Nor would I refuse an injunction on the basis that the plaintiffs have not come to equity with clean hands.

4 Nevertheless, I believe I still have a wide discretion not to grant an injunction but to grant damages instead in circumstances where the plaintiff has to some degree acquiesced in the invasion of his legal rights (see, e.g. Sayers v....