Brown v Robinson & Anor (Jamaica)

Brown v Robinson & Anor (Jamaica) [2004] UKPC 56 (14 December 2004)

ADVANCE COPY

Privy Council Appeal No. 27 of 2004

Inez Brown (near relation of Paul Andrew Reid, deceased) Appellant

v.

(1) David Robinson and

(2) Sentry Service Co. Ltd. Respondents

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA

---------------

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 14th December 2004

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Clyde

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

[Delivered by Lord Carswell]

------------------

On 8 October 1985 Paul Reid, a young man of 17 years, was shot and seriously injured by the first-named respondent David Robinson, an employee of the second respondent, a security company named Sentry Service Co Ltd ("the company"). He was taken to hospital suffering from paraplegia and died on 20 January 1986 from septicaemia resulting from his wounds.

The appellant, Paul Reid's mother, commenced the present proceedings in 1990, claiming damages against both respondents under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Proceedings) Act on behalf of his estate and under the Fatal Accidents Act as his dependant. The action eventually came on for hearing in March 1996, but judgment was not given until 18 December 1998. The judge Courtenay Orr J awarded a total of $3,717,838.20 against both respondents. The first respondent Robinson was not in a position to satisfy the judgment and the company appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard (by Downer, Walker and Langrin JJA) over several days in November 2001, at the end of which the court declared that the appeal would be allowed and the action against the company dismissed, on the ground that Robinson had been acting outside the scope of his employment and the company was not liable for the tort committed by him. It was also argued on behalf of the company that the damages awarded by the judge were wrong in principle and excessive, but since the court found in favour of the company it did not deal with the issue of damages. A written judgment was given on 3 April 2003. The appellant appealed to the Privy Council by special leave given on 13 November 2003 and the appeal was heard on 14 October 2004. The Board was given reasons for part at least of the long delay, but without expressing any opinion on their sufficiency the Board must record its concern at the length of time which has elapsed since the shooting incident in 1985.

At the hearing before the Board counsel for the parties dealt with two issues in their arguments. The first was whether the company was vicariously liable for Robinson's tort – no appeal was brought against the finding by the Court of Appeal that Robinson was an employee of the company and not an independent contractor. The second was the issue of damages.

The judge found that on 8 October 1985 Paul Reid went to Sabina Park, Kingston to…

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established