Flynagen Ltd v Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: 223 of 1997
• Date: 12 April 2000

High Court

Shanks, J.

223 of 1997

Flynagen Limited

and

Corozal Free Zone Development Limited

Appearances

Mr. Denys Barrow, S.C., for the applicant.

Mr. Dons Waithe, for the respondent.

Damages - Assessment of damage — Contract for the sale of land — Court found contract to be at an end — Application for damages under section 134 of the Registered Land Act — Whether the applicant was entitled to damages under section 134 of the Act for the caution having been lodged ‘wrongfully and without reasonable cause’ by the defendants — Finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation under section 134 of the Act — Award of $184,200 under section 134.

Shanks, J.

1 I heard on the 6th of April, 2000 a number of applications arising out of judgment I delivered in this matter on 24th January, 2000. Since that judgment Mr. Dons Waithe has replace Mr. Michael Young, S.C. as the respondent's attorney and on 7th April, 2000 I made an order fixing this hearing and requiring the parties to file affidavit evidence in of their contentions by 31st March, 2000 and evidence in reply by 4th March, 2000 and to notify each other by 4th April, 2000 if they required any deponent to attend for cross-examination. Neither side gave any such notice and I have dealt with application on the affidavit evidence before me.

2 The first matter is an assessment of the current value of Lot 325 which the applicant ought to have been in a position to restore to the respondent (CFZDL) when the contract was declared by me to be at an end. Mr. Arnold in an affidavit dated 30th March, 2000 contends for a figure of $88,000 (or $40 per acre) based on the price paid by purchasers of Lots 369 and 370 in January which was $47. per square foot. Mr. Burks, the plaintiff's agent, swore an affidavit on 4th April, 2000 stating that Lot 325 was actually sold in August, 1999 for $32,000 and produced a receipt and the auctioneer, Mr. Castillo, swears that Lots 399, 412, 413, 414 and 415 were put up for auction on 3rd April, 2000 and the highest offer received was $20,000. It seems to me that the best evidence of the value of Lot 325 is the price it actually obtained and I can see no reason why the plaintiff would not have tried to get the best price available. Lots 369 and 370 may for all I know have different features to those of 325. I therefore assess its value at $32,000.

3 I next deal with the plaintiff's application for damages under s. 134 of the Land Registration Act arising out of the placing of a caution over parcel 353 by CFZDL on 9th September, 1996. Mr. Waithe's first point in...