Bidesi v Millers Limited [1976] FijiLawRp 24; [1976] 22 FLR 139 (12 November 1976)

[1976] 22 FLR 139

SUPREME COURT

Civil Jurisdiction

SHIU PAL BIDESI

v

MILLERS LIMITED

Kermode J.

12th November, 1976

Bailor and bailee — destruction of chattel whilst in bailee's possession — onus of proof on bailee to establish that chattel not damaged as result of his negligence.

Damages — assessment — chattel damaged in traffic accident and subsequently by fire at repairer's garage.

Practice and procedure — discovery of documents — mutual discovery mandatory unless both parties agree otherwise — order for discovery once made by court must be obeyed — improper for parties to waive discovery after order made — Rules of the Supreme Court 1968 0.24 rs. 1, 2, 3, 16.

Whilst in the possession of the defendant company, the plaintiff's car, already damaged in a traffic accident, was destroyed by fire. The defendant company was unable to produce any acceptable evidence that it had taken reasonable care of the car, and thus discharge the onus of proof that the car was not damaged as a result of its negligence.

To enable the court to assess the measure of damages, the plaintiff must prove the damage to the car caused by the accident, its value after the accident, and the amount by which it had depreciated as a result of the subsequent fire.

Rules of the Supreme Court 0.24 rs. 1 & 2 made automatic mutual discovery of documents mandatory unless the parties agreed otherwise. Once, however, an order for discovery had been made by the court, it could not be waived unilaterally by one or both parties, and must be complied with.
Cases referred to:
Houghland v R. R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd. [1962] 2 All ER 159; [1962] 1 QB 694.
Morris v C. W. Martin & Sons [1965] 2 All ER 725; [1966] 1 QB 716.

Action in the Supreme Court for damages for negligence, detinue and conversion.

KERMODE J.: [12th November 1976] –

The plaintiff's vehicle M167 was damaged in an accident on the 22nd January 1973 and the plaintiff instructed the defendant to take his vehicle from the scene of the accident to its garage. On the evening of the day in question the defendant brought the damaged car to its garage and left it in its yard. Later that night the car caught fire and suffered further damage. The plaintiff alleged the fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant particulars of which were pleaded.

In the alternative the plaintiff claims in detinue and for conversion. The alternative claim must fail as the plaintiff admitted that before issue of the writ he had transferred the property in the wrecked car to his insurers, Bankers and Traders Insurance Company Limited.