Tatum v Belize Airways Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 28 September 1978
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 15 of 1978
• Date: 28 September 1978

Supreme Court

Malone, C.J.

Civil Action No. 15 of 1978

Tatum

and

Belize Airways Limited

Appearances:

Mr. Dean Barrow for the plaintiff

Senator S.W. Musa for the defendant

Before the Hon. Sir Denis Malone, Chief Justice

Industrial Law - Contract of service — Termination by employer — Damages

Facts: Plaintiff accepted offer of job as flight attendant — Plaintiff a national of Honduras — Employer's policy one of recruiting Belizean Nationals — Employer repudiated contract — Whether plaintiff entitled to nominal damages only on ground that repudiation was a technical breach — Whether plaintiff entitled to compensation that would put her back in the position in which she was before the contract was made — Whether plaintiff in breach of her obligation to mitigate the loss occasioned her by the repudiation of the contract — Whether damages should be paid in the currency of the country in which the contract was to have taken effect

Held: (1) Plaintiff not entitled to nominal damages only on the ground that the breach was a technical one.

1 The claim is for wrongful repudiation of a contract. Liability was not admitted by the defendant company to which I shall refer hereafter as B.A.L., but that there was a contract which it repudiated is not to my mind open to question, for the facts on that aspect of the case are the following. The plaintiff, aspiring to be a flight attendant, which is B.A.L.'s description of an air hostess, applied to B.A.L., was interviewed by B.A.L.'s Chief Stewardess, Miss Hurst, and was in December, 1977, both verbally and in writing accepted by B.A.L. The plaintiff was and is a national of the republic of Honduras. B.A.L. was at the time recruiting only Belizeans — a term which is not easily defined with precision but which does not include non-British nationals. It may be, as the plaintiff says, that at her interview with Miss Hurst she informed the latter of her national status. Whether she did so or not is not however of importance as I am satisfied that she was under no obligation to do so. What is clear is that she did not, at any time, conceal her true national status, nor did B.A.L. at any time before accepting her disclose to her that it was only recruiting Belizeans. For if do not accept the suggestion that because the plaintiff handed over her passport to B.A.L. a few days before she was due to leave Belize for Miami with the other recruits, that showed she was concealing her nationality nor the suggestion that because B.A.L. advertised for recruits in Belizean newspapers, that showed that B.A.L. was only recruiting Belizeans. When the plaintiff's true national status first came to the attention of Mr. Shoman, the Manager of B.A.L. in Belize, he discussed with her the problem at created. It is agreed that he suggested to her two courses of possible conduct to overcome the problem. Failing which B.A.L. he said, could not employ the plaintiff. One was to become a British subject. The other was to defer her training until B.A.L. began to recruit Hondurans, and that Mr. Shoman explained would take place about June. Mr. Shoman implied to the court that had the plaintiff deferred her training, B.A.L. could have recruited her as a Honduran. It is, however, not clear from his evidence that he in fact assured the plaintiff that B.A.L. would employ her as a Honduran and the evidence of the plaintiff, which I accept, is that he did not give that assurance.

2 An attempt was made by the plaintiff to change her nationality but if even the British authorities had been willing to accept her, the necessary formalities could not have been completed in the time available. The plaintiff declined to accept the alternative. It may be that given more time B.A.L. might have been able to persuade the authorities concerned with civil aviation to permit it to make an exception of the plaintiff. There is, however, no evidence that B.A.L. in fact contemplated an approach to the authorities for that purpose, nor of course is it known if such an approach would have been successful. In the result, the plaintiff did not go to Miami and was not employed by B.A.L. She in fact joined the ranks of the unemployed as in anticipation of being employed by B.A.L., she resigned a well paid job. I turn then to consider the issue of damages. In doing so, I would say at the outset that I cannot accept the submission of Counsel for B.A.L. the plaintiff is deserving only of nominal damages on the ground that the repudiation was a technical breach. For if even the repudiation was such, and I do not think it was, as I think it was the casual way in which B.A.L. conducted its business that caused the repudiation of the contract, that would not necessarily result in the damages being merely nominal.

3 To arrive at the damages, it is necessary in the first place to determine what was the nature of the contract in this case. The evidence of the plaintiff is that a few days after her interview with Miss Hurst, she was informed verbally by Miss Alamilla, the secretary of B.A.L. that she had been chosen as a trainee flight attendant. That information was confirmed in writing when on the 20th December, 1977, Mr. Shoman wrote to her in...