Harvey and another (Appellants) v Brette and others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Judgment given

Case summary
Judgment details
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2019/0049

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Johann Lindsay

Patrick Harvey

Respondent(s)

Nigel Ryan Brette

James Lindsay Brette

Sheila Brette

Issue

(1) Should the Court of Civil Appeal have remitted the case to the trial judge to decide, in light of the available evidence, whether the First Respondent was responsible for the accident or contributed to it? (2) Alternatively, was the Court of Civil Appeal’s assessment of the evidence and conclusion that the Appellants were liable for the accident correct?

Facts

These proceedings concern a claim for damages following a road traffic accident. On 8 March 2010, the First Appellant was driving his van along Royal Road, Mon Loisir. He collided with the First Respondent, who was then a seven-year-old child. The First Respondent sustained serious injuries and was 100% incapacitated as a result of the accident. The Second and Third Respondents are the First Respondent’s parents. The Second Appellant is the van’s insurer. At first instance, the judge held that, since the van was under the garde of the First Appellant and was insured by the Second Appellant, the Appellants were liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Appellants had not adduced any evidence to show that the accident was the exclusive fault of the First Respondent. It was not therefore necessary to consider the testimony of an eyewitness to the accident. The Court of Civil Appeal held that the trial judge had misdirected herself when she declined to consider the available evidence. However, it dismissed the Appellants’ appeal on the basis that, upon a proper direction, the judge could not reasonably have come to a different conclusion on the issue of liability.