Shoodoo Adventures v Kenny's Trucking

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1030-2
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2015/0406

Between:

Shodo Adventures Ltd.

Claimant

and

Kenny's Trucking & Equipment Services Ltd.

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J1030-2

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2015/0406

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Ms. Carah St Paul for the Claimant

Ms. Caryn Adams for the Defendant

RULING ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

Actie, J.

1 The claimant, a developer of an eco-tourism project known as the Grenada High Wire Adventure Course Project (hereafter referred to as “the Project”), entered a contract with the defendant on 10 ^th December 2014. The defendant was to execute building works including the erection and casting of twenty-five wooden poles using concrete and steel as per engineers' specifications for a zip line.

2 The defendant was to complete the scope of works on 15 ^th January 2015 but delayed and completed at the end of February 2015. Following the completion of the works, the claimant discovered that the defendant carried out defective work using inferior and unsuitable materials in breach of its contractual duty.

3 The claimant in a statement of claim filed on 24 ^th September 2015 and amended on 20 ^th October 2015, claimed, among other things, special damages in the sum of $194,708.16, the completion of the works by another contractor, general damages for breach of contract, interest and costs.

4 The claimant by agreement dated 24 ^th June 2016 contracted Selective Engineering Company Ltd (hereafter referred to as “Selective Engineering”) for the re-erection and casting of 25 zip lining posts, bases and pillars on site using concrete and steel.

5 The matter was referred to a Referee pursuant to Part 40.3 and the court, acting pursuant Part 40.6(3), accepted the Referee's report indicating that the defendant carried out defective works which were not fit for the intended purpose. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favour of the claimant, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed with damages to be assessed if not agreed.

Damages

6 The parties failed to settle, and the matter came on for further hearing and discussions on the pleadings and quantum claimed for special damages.

7 It is trite that the purpose of an award of damages is to put the claimant back into the position he would have been in had the contract been performed 1. This court at a further hearing on 23 ^rd September 2025, allowed special damages in the sum of $15,709.95 as pleaded. Counsel for the parties conceded a nominal sum of $15,000.00 for future earnings in keeping with the principle in British Westinghouse Electric Co. Ltd. v Underground Electric Railways 2.

8 The court is only now required to rule on damages for the breach of contract. The issue arising between the parties is the measure of damages to be awarded for the defendant's breach of the contract as a result of the defective work.

Measure of damages to which the claimant is entitled

9 Counsel for the claimant relies on Chitty on Contracts 3 where it is stated that:

“Where, after completion, there are defects in the works, the employer will normally be entitled to damages equal to the costs of making good the defects (this is sometimes referred to as the costs of reinstatement)”

10 The authors go on to state that whilst such an award puts the employer into the position he would have been in if the contract had been properly performed, it is still for the employer to show that reinstatement is a reasonable response to the damage in question 4.

11 The authors of Halsbury's Laws of England 5 state the following with regard to reliance damages:

“Reliance damages, by contrast to expectation damages, compensate for losses suffered by the claimant through having relied on performance by the other party and then having been disappointed…

Reliance damages can be divided into two categories. One is where the claimant incurs expenditure which he would not have undertaken at all had the defendant duly performed his contractual obligations. The second arises where the claimant would have incurred expense even if the contract had not been broken, but alleges that that expense, which might otherwise have borne fruit, has become wasted owing to the breach. … For these purposes it is irrelevant whether any relevant expenditure was made before or after the contract was concluded: the only question, with either precontract or post-contract expenditure, is whether the defendant's breach has caused it to become wasted.”

12 It is the law that the damages due to the employer in respect of defective works will normally be the cost of making good the defect, unless that cost is out of all proportion to the harm suffered, in which case, damages comprise the difference between the value of the property without the defect and the value with the defect (diminution in value caused by the defect) 6.

13 The House of Lords in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth 7 stated the following at page 357:

“What constitutes the aggrieved party's loss is in every case a question of fact and degree. Where the contract breaker has entirely failed to achieve the contractual objective it may not be difficult to conclude that the loss is the necessary cost of achieving that objective. Thus if a building is constructed so defectively that it is of no use for its designed purpose the owner may have little difficulty in establishing that his loss is the necessary cost of reconstructing. Furthermore in taking reasonableness into account in determining the extent of loss it is reasonableness in relation to the particular contract and not at large…”

14 Counsel for the claimant submits that the measure of damages to be applied in the circumstances of this case is that of reinstatement. Counsel argues that a calculation based on the diminution in value of the property will not achieve the object of damages, and that the cost of making good the defects is proportionate to the harm suffered based on the following, among other things:

• (1) The concrete integrity was poor and necessitated further action on the part of the defendant.

• (2) The incurred repairs were required for the claimant to proceed with the next phase of the project. Practical completion occurred in or around the end of February 2015 and the pillar cracked on or around 7 ^th April 2015 meaning that there was a high likelihood that, if not rectified before next phase, the defects would become more patent and dangerous in greater liability damage.

• (3) The claimant addressed the repairs required to ensure that the project was completed in the shortest amount of time and to the standard that it needed.

15 Counsel for the defendant argues that the claimant failed to plead or provide the cost of rectification in the claim. The defendant relies on the decision of Webster JA (Ag.) in Henry Owens III v Anguilla Partnership Enterprises Ltd. 8 where he stated at paragraph 46:

“One of the principles relating to an assessment of damages for breach of contract, or any other claim, is that the claimant is entitled to only such damages as are pleaded and the claimant is bound by his or her pleading – per Hariprashad-Charles J in Ian Charles v The Board of Governors of the H. Lavity Stoutt Community College. Further, as noted in Dr. Miranda Fellows v Carino Hamilton Development Company Limited, a claimant cannot expand his claim to seek reliefs that are not pleaded. Ms. Carter relied on these cases as well as Bertha Francis v First Caribbean International Bank (B'dos) Ltd. formerly CIBC Caribbean Ltd.

where Mason J refused a late application by the claimant to amend her claim. The learned judge opined at paragraph 28 of her judgment that –

“In applying these considerations to the case at bar, I am of the view that the court cannot ‘embark upon substantive judicial consideration of the issue[s] that have not been previously canvassed.’ It is therefore the obligation and duty of the Claimant to have pleaded her case on liability and damages in advance so that the Defendant would have a fair idea of the case it has to meet. Not having done so, in order to fit within the scope of “further or other relief”, the claimant would need permission to raise, plead and seek the relief that she now wishes to seek.”

16 Counsel for the defendant argues that the claimant failed to plead the cost for rectification and therefore the claim for rectification should not be allowed.

17 The court notes that the claimant's pleaded...