Fiarness Ltd v Larry Phillip Davis

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Acting Registrar Turner
• Judgment Date: 04 December 2023
• Docket Number: 2018/CLE/GEN/00096
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

Fiarness Limited

Plaintiff

and

Larry Phillip Davis

Defendant

Before:

Acting Registrar Edmund Turner

2018/CLE/GEN/00096

IN THE SUPREME COURT

COMMON LAW & EQUITY DIVISION

Appearances:

Mr. Byron Woodside for the Plaintiff; and Mr. Larry Davis Pro Se.

JUDGMENT

Acting Registrar Turner

Introduction

1. In January of 2018 the Defendant entered the premises of the Plaintiff by breaking down walls surrounding the Plaintiff's property. The Defendant claimed he was the owner of a part of the subject property. On 4^th April 2018 an injunction was issued, which stopped the defendant from further destroying the Plaintiff's wall. On 29^th January 2018 the Plaintiff commenced an action for trespass and willful damage to its property. On 3rd December 2021 Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville ruled that the Plaintiff was the owner of lots 54 and 55, Ellis Addition Subdivision as a result of a conveyance dated 1^st August 2017 between Sunshine Holdings and the Plaintiff. A declaration was made that the Plaintiff was is not entitled to occupy the subject property. It was also ordered by the said Justice that ‘Damages are to be assessed by the Registrar.’

Case for The Plaintiff

2. The Plaintiff's case is simple, i.e. the Court awarded damages to the Plaintiff and now the Plaintiff claims those damages as were pleaded and awarded at trial. i.e.:

• a. Repair of the Plaintiff's wall in the sum of $16, 825.00; and

• b. Wrongful collection from Cable Bahamas Limited of the amount of $60,000.00.

3. As a result, the Plaintiff claims the sum of $76,825.00 and interest from the date of the Order and costs for the application.

Case for the Defendant

4. It is important to note that in the assessment at hand, the Defendant represented himself, and produced no evidence contrary to the sworn testimony of the Plaintiff in respect to damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

5. In addition to the above, it should be noted that the Defendant did make an effort to amicably resolve the matter at hand by offering vacant land valued in excess of $300,000.00. The said offer was not accepted by the Plaintiffs.

Conclusion

6. The Court finds that the aforementioned sum regarding repair to the wall concerned is not excessive or unreasonable, and hence the figure of $16, 825.00 is allowed.

7. In addition, the sum of $60,000.00 that was wrongfully collected from Cable Bahamas Limited was never disputed by the Defendant, and hence is also allowed.

8...