Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) v Amanda Rhoda Ramdeo (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0064

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

AMANDA RHODA RAMDEO

Respondent(s)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Issue

Can the appellant claim damages for loss of earnings?

Facts

In March 2005, the appellant purchased a Caterpillar excavator model 215 DLC (“the excavator”) for $180,000. On 14th November 2005, the appellant rented the excavator to Gravel Management Company (“Gravel”) for a period of six days. When Mr Shivanand Ramdeo, the appellant’s brother, arrived at Gravel’s quarry site to collect the excavator, he was met by police officers who told him that the excavator had been seized as part of an investigation of illegal quarrying operations and would be stored at the Cumuto Army Base (“the Army Base”). On 9 March 2006, the appellant was charged under Section 25(b) of the State Lands Act Chapter 57:01 with the offence being “concerned with the digging, winning and removal of materials from State lands without a licence”. The police told the appellant that the excavator had to remain in police custody until the charge had been determined. The excavator remained at the Army Base unused, unmaintained and exposed to the elements. The charges were dismissed on 6 July 2012. In October 2013, the appellant visited the Army Base and requested the return of the excavator. He was informed by the police officer on duty that he could not remove the excavator because the dismissal of the charges may be appealed. The appellant visited the Army Base again in or around November 2014 and requested the return of the excavator. On this occasion, he was given permission to take the excavator but could not move it due to its state of disrepair. On 21 January 2016, the appellant issued proceedings against the respondent for malicious prosecution, conversion, detinue and trespass to goods. At trial, the appellant’s detinue claim succeeded. The judge awarded damages for the cost of repairing the excavator, loss of earnings and exemplary damages. The claim for malicious prosecution, however, was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the prosecution was malicious. Both parties appealed against the decision of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the trial judge’s finding that the prosecution was not malicious. However, the Court of Appeal by majority overturned the trial judge’s award of damages for the cost of repair and loss of earnings. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the Court of Appeal’s decision that the appellant was not entitled to damages for loss of earnings.