Caye International Bank Ltd v Tommy Lynn Haugen
| Jurisdiction | Caribbean States |
| Judge | Wit,Anderson,Rajnauth-Lee,Burgess,Jamadar,Mr Justice Jacob Wit,Mr. Justice Wit |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2020 |
| Court | Caribbean Court of Justice |
| Docket Number | CCJ Civil Appeal No. BZCV2019/004 |
| Date | 28 July 2020 |
CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Appellate Jurisdiction
The Honourables Mr Justice J Wit, JCCJ
Mr Justice W Anderson, JCCJ
Mme Justice M Rajnauth-Lee, JCCJ
Mr Justice A Burgess, JCCJ
Mr Justice P Jamadar, JCCJ
CCJ Civil Appeal No. BZCV2019/004
BZ Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2016
Mr James Guthrie, QC, Mr Fred Lumor, SC and Ms Sheena Pitts for the Appellants
Mr Eamon H Courtenay, SC and Ms Pricilla J Banner, for the Respondent
of
The Honourable Justices Wit,
Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Burgess, and Jamadar
Delivered by
The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob Wit
on the 28 th day of July 2020
JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice Wit, JCCJ:
In 2014, the Respondent (“Mr Haugen”) sued the Appellants (“Caye Bank” and “Mr Nagel”) for damages in the Supreme Court of Belize. The claims were based on two separate issues. The first issue was this: in 2003, Caye Bank and Mr Nagel had persuaded Mr Haugen to purchase 3,417 shares in Caye Bank for which he paid Caye Bank US$ 200,655.00 in total. Mr Haugen alleged that the Bank and Mr Nagel had fraudulently misrepresented the status of Caye Bank. He also alleged that he had never received the shares he had purchased (although he also suggested that these shares had been wrongly forfeited by Caye Bank). With respect to this issue, he demanded damages in the sum of US$ 200,655.00 (a) for fraudulent misrepresentation (a tort) or, alternatively, (b) for breach of contract. The second issue was the original reason why Mr Haugen decided to take Caye Bank and Mr Nagel to court. He alleged that a sum of US$ 10,202.03 had wrongly been withdrawn from his account with Caye Bank, constituting a breach of contract with respect to that account. Mr Haugen demanded that this sum be repaid to him. He further insisted that all the amounts claimed by him, should be paid with interest pursuant to sections 166 and 167 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. He also claimed costs and such further or other relief which the Court would think fit.
Although all these claims had been strongly contested by Caye Bank and Mr Nagel in their written Defence, they conceded on the first day of the trial the second plank of Mr Haugen's case (the wrongful withdrawal of moneys from his bank account). However, they firmly maintained their opposition to the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Despite their arguments, the court ruled against them and ordered them to pay the damages demanded “for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract”, plus interest as well as interest on the amount of US$10,202.03 (by that time, the amount had apparently already been repaid to Mr Haugen). Caye Bank and Mr Nagel were also ordered to pay costs to Mr Haugen in the sum of $75,000.
Caye Bank and Mr Nagel appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, that court was informed that the Bank and Mr Nagel had made good the wrong caused by the conceded breach of contract with respect to the wrongful withdrawal of US$ 10,202.03 from Mr Haugen's bank account. As to the first issue, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that Caye Bank and Mr Nagel had been guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation. However, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the trial judge should have made a choice between the alleged causes of action: fraudulent misrepresentation in tort or, alternatively, breach of contract. The Court of Appeal viewed the latter cause of action as the appropriate one and stated: “The remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation is rescission and or damages.” They dismissed the appeal, substituted the order to pay damages as formulated by the trial judge with an order “that the contract for shares … is rescinded and the appellants shall pay the sum of US$ 200,655.00 back to the respondent as part of the rescission. The rest of the orders made by the trial judge are...
To continue reading
Request your trial