Levers J
IN CHAMBERS AS OPEN COURT
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
Cause No: 434/06
BETWEEN:
PETER KELLEHER
Plaintiff
AND:
HARRY'S CARIBBEAN BAR LIMITED
First Defendant
FITZROY MUNROE
Second Defendant
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Levers
Appearance:
Mr. Robert Jones of Ritch & Conolly for the plaintiff
Mr. Harry Cupid in person
Mr. Clyde Allen of CHA for the 2nd defendant
Heard: 6th - 7th December 2007
JUDGMENT
Levers, J.
In this matter, the Plaintiff obtained Summary Judgment on 30th January 2007, for the sum of $26,842.37, and costs to be taxed on the basis that the Plaintiff loaned the First Defendant monies.
A Defence was filed and supported by an affidavit of Anthony Cupid, one of the Directors of the First Defendant. The Summary Judgment
application came before the Honourable Chief Justice on 30th January 2007 and the First Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s application for Summary Judgment was dismissed.
Subsequently, a summons was taken out for directions to be given to the Bailiff in connection with the completion of the execution of the Writ of Fieri Facias dated the 15th May 2007 and for costs to be provided. As a result of the order made on the summons to the Bailiff, an Interpleader Summons was taken out by the Court on behalf of the Bailiff and the Second Defendant, Mr. Fitzroy Munroe was requested to file an affidavit in support of his claim that some of the goods at Harry’s Caribbean Bar were his.
He filed an affidavit in response to the Interpleader Summons and was granted permission to be heard. The evidence from Mr. Monroe was that there was a Lease with a Scheduled attached to it, which identified the items that he leased to Harry’s Caribbean Bar Ltd. That although those goods were replaced, as a result of being damaged during hurricane Ivan, they still remained his.
Mr. Munroe claimed that a list of the goods was identified in the Schedule but unfortunately, the Schedule attached to the lease was missing although the lease itself was exhibited.
It is now a question for this court to adjudicate on the merits of Mr. Munroe’s claim whether in fact the goods belonged to Mr. Munroe or Harry’s Caribbean Bar Ltd. There is not a scintilla of evidence (documentary) save and except for an affidavit claiming the goods by Mr. Munroe. The Court has to adjudicate on whether it can hold that certain items must have been in place when the lease was signed and the Court is being asked to speculate that any Schedule contained the items claimed by Mr. Munroe. Mr. Munroe has produced a Customs Import form for restaurant equipment dated 1997. It bears no details as to the goods imported. All it says is that it was restaurant equipment.
The following is a list of the items claimed by Mr. Monroe:
(a) Dining Area
5 Booths
8 Tables
7 Televisions
1 Karaoke Machine and Speaker for Alvin Babb
(b) Bar
1 Cooler
1 Cash Register
1 A/C Unit
1 Refrigerator
(c) Serving Area
1 Cash Register
1 Fax Machine
1 Cooler
(d) Kitchen
3 Microwaves
1 Vulcan Oven
1 Deep Fryer
1 Imperial 12 Burner Stove with one Oven
1 Grill
1 Freezer
1 Refrigerator
31 Chafing Pans
1 Imperial Single Stove
Mr. Munroe, by his attorney, accepts that he does not himself claim the Karaoke machine. The Bailiff also has a list. Mr. Munroe’s list has seven televisions. I order that any televisions manufactured after 1997 are to be taken by the Bailiff. Mr. Munroe identifies 2 coolers. The Bailiff can therefore leave two coolers and take all the other coolers that he found in the premises. The Bailiff can leave 1 large speaker and take all the other speakers in the premises. The Bailiff is permitted to take all the tables and all the chairs, save and except for
8 tables. The Bailiff is permitted to take the digital satellite receiver, the wall clock, 2 speakers, the indoor air conditioning unit manufactured in 2000, the two mini coolers, the ice storage sink, the triple sink, and the dual door oven and the three section sink, the meat slicer, the 3 fridges at items 36, 37, and 38. The cash register at item 41, the glass door cooler, the credit card machine and the triple sink, the oversize umbrella and the Jerk stand miscellaneous and chairs and tables outside. I accept Mr. Munroe’s word that there was a bar which was replaced and that would destroy the premises, if taken. Mr. Munroe does not claim anything in the office and storage room at the premises and the Bailiff is permitted to take the items in those areas. Further, Mr. Munroe does not claim any glasses, the satellite dish, the bar sign, the security cameras and the window furnishings.
I therefore, feel that those items should be the only one’s taken from the premises, including all liquor bottles and all food items that can be sold.
to the items can intervene and defend the person against whom judgment was entered is not a happy situation. I therefore have no alternative but to award costs against Mr. Munroe in this matter. He has prolonged the issue, taken points to set aside the default judgment which was not possible by him and has wasted the Court's time and incurred unnecessary administrative costs. Costs to be taxed or agreed.
Dated this 11th day of December 2007
Judge of the Grand Court