Law Lords criticise TT Appeal Court

THE BRITISH Privy Council has criticised the TT Court of Appeal for reversing an order of a High Court judge in a traffic accident case, or what is commonly referred to as a “running down” trial.

The Law Lords said it was a matter of some surprise that the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal from the judge’s order. At the end of the judgment delivered on Thursday, the Privy Council restored the judge’s order with costs. Indra Ragoonath had sued Martin Rago for damages to her vehicle following an accident on February 13, 1986 at the intersection of Rousseau Street and Cross Street, Sangre Grande.

Justice Nolan Bereaux, after hearing witnesses, ruled in favour of Rago on a counterclaim in his judgment dated October 30, 1998. However, the Court of Appeal, comprising former Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, Justice Jean Permanand and Justice Lionel Jones, in a judgment dated December 18, 2000, allowed the appeal and ordered Rago to pay damages and costs. In one of the rare cases of the kind to go before the Privy Council, the Law Lords ruled in Rago’s favour, putting an end to a matter stretching 17 years.

The appeal was before before Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Hobhouse, Scott, and Walker. In the judgment, Lord Walker said, “it is unnecessary for their Lordships to refer to the very well known authorities cautioning appellate tribunals against interfering with findings of primary fact made by a trial judge who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.” He continued, “the Court of Appeal must have had those principles well in mind and de la Bastide (with whom the other members of the court agreed) made at least a passing reference to them in his judgment. How then did the Court of Appeal reach the conclusion that it should overrule the clear findings of fact made by Bereaux J?”

Lord Walker said the judgment of the former Chief Justice put forward three main reasons. First, Justice Bereaux was criticised for treating his acceptance of Rago’s evidence and that of a witness as determinative of liability. Second, the damage to the car was an indication that it was ahead of the truck in crossing the intersection. Third, Rago must have been negligent, if for no other reason, in failing to observe the car until a moment before the collision.

Lord Walker added, “their Lordships cannot accept that these points provide a sufficient basis for overturning the judge’s assessment of the oral evidence. This is not a case where the trial judge can be shown to have wasted his advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, or to have overlooked or misunderstood some important item of evidence.”
The Law Lords said Justice Bereaux was faced with two totally conflicting versions of the facts and he had to decide which witnesses were telling the truth.