Pew Ltd v Mvula (Civil Cause 1589 of 1993) [1993] MWHCCiv 48 (1 December 1993)

' . I :, /). . ·~ _· , '. <:.: I IN fl\[ Ii[(;\\ COUl<.l or MAL/\W [ \> I< 1 NC I I) A I_ l< [ G I S r I< Y C I V I I_ CA U S [ NU M ll [ I< 0 r 1 S 13:) 0 r 1 9 9 3 ll [ T \·/ [ UI : PEI✓ LTD .. . . fl I_ A I i·J [ F r MID II MVUL/\ .... . ... . . . . . . . . . . i ! L f' [ r,11. J /\ ~I T CO l<f\M : Tf\ Mf1f\ L f\ J Kapl1ale, of Counsel for Ll1e Pl.1ir1Liff KclSurnbulJ of Counsel 1~ u k u n cJ o , 0 f f i c i cJ 1 I n L e r p r e t r. r the Del'e:nrl,1nL fo r I< UL IN G I11 Li,i'., Jpplicc1l.i,111 Lile clefe17cJ,:rnt L,· su 'rre11der Lo n u in l) e r N o . 13 1-1 3 1.+ 5 8 a p p 1 i c cJ t i o n f o r a p I c1 i n t i ff ' s t11r c1pplicc1lion . opposition . ~l i s s a n rn cJ n cJ a L o r y cJ l.11c• pl,1ir1Lill', <,cc:k .111 order requiring tl1ern a 11101,or vr::l1icle reqisLraLion 13 l u e b i r cl . I t i n j u 11 c t i o n . M r S u .i i L D u t t cJ i s e s s e n L i i) 1 l y l. 17 e cJ n f i nan c i a 1 co rit. r o l l er swore c1 11 Tl1e dcfencJunt's co1111sr2l s•,,ore an aFriclavit ir1 i n sup 11 or L o f cl f r i <J J v i t : -:. Tl1e cJefencl ant 1-,Js employee! by Ll1e plainLiffs on 1st: /\ugust 1 9 9 1 , a s a Ma n a g e r Depi1rl".rnent. !,r:l.·,1,:':r'. •<·_ HP. ·~1'.,1; · ,, r: \'/,l", i n L 11 r. i r r e r son n e \ rl llocr1 lr•r\ ,1 n, I Ul1lj). Hly ( i l t ' 1.o ( :;,,rj 1,110 (Jfficc . iJ c. ·;1 e p l 0 i n t i f f t o u s e L 17 e c a r · ;:i .) a n cJ p e r s o n a l 1:ltli11t i f f to clrive l1irn. There 1:lilS u con c.l iLiO(l em p l o ye e of t\1 e p l cJ i 17 L i f f U1e vehicle . l·i :1 o 1-1 a s au LI 1 or i s e cJ I I e 1·1 a s a s s i Sl n r:> ci ri u r p o s e s . t o lie \·lilS SJJIJ':. '' 1\J•"'ntl; r: ~rrnil.t,';'r\ il f o r s 0 c i ,l l l i :11 i t r> u r:: 1, \. e n ~- ,1 c I r i '! c r I, I, '? I J y 0. 1r1 ll l o y (? rJ tl1,1L 011\y ,111 t n. d r i v e co u l cJ rl r i v r_> /\ d 1n t n i s I. r cl t i o r1 lr,7n~pnrl. l1 i r11 011 15l.11 OctobPr Fl'.33 l.ile pl,1ir1Liffs Lr.r111ir10l.ecJ Ll1e T I 1 e y c I ; 1 l y p a i cl T ll e cJ r i v e r o s s i c,, ri e cJ L o cl r i v e )" c l cl i n e ;J I 1 i s . l e r m i n J l ,,., ,1 s 1•1 i L ll cJ r ,:n: n . 1 i c e n c e . I 1 i in I 1 i Ill 11 e h a s \. e 1° 111 i n r1 l Ii r. 11 r r i :. r; 111011Ll1s follo,✓ i11~; l h e c o fr. p a n y c J r l. I 1 c1 l. i :, l.0rrninc1Lio,1 or ,1 n c I ll1e I 1 r. I I P () r ~I u i n ~I ,:_, n L i L l c I I llis d e f e n cl a n t s ' s e rn p l o y rric: 11 t . b e n e f i l s . ll a s n o v a l i cl t I 1 a t i t 1-_o use emp I oyrnrn [· . . 1-1 a s i t for i, J r t o f 1.lffec:i I 1 i s 2/ . .... I bear i n rn i n d L he pr i n c i, p l es v, I I i c I 1 ~Ju i cl c L h ~ co lJr t vlt 1 en to g r a n L a n cl e c i d i n g w 11 et 11 t' :~ t he case of Am C': !' i cu n Cy nu mi cJ Co I a p JJ rec i ate t i 1 d t i n j u n ct i o 17 discretion . i s L :1 e s u b j e c L o f ' i n t er l o c u Lo r y i ~1 J 1J n c t. i on s t iJ t e cl i n - v - Et tic o n L ;_ r i ( 1 9 7 5 ) A C 3 <J 6 . t 11 e gr c1 n t i n ~J or re f us a l t 11 e c o u r t s ex e r c i s 0. o f to 0 1· ,1 r1 L s u c I 1 i L s T 11 i s c o u r t 11 a s T 11 e c o u r t w o u 1 d n o t e x c e p t i o n a 1 r e m e cl y . caution. J\ n o tt1 e r See ( 1 9 7 O ) A C 6 5 2 • j u r i s d i c L i o 17 L o g r u n I. · a 11 9 v1 e v e r r e a d i 1 y g r il n L t I 1 il t ,n c1 n cJ o t o r y r e 1 i e f . i n j u r1 c t i o 17 • i s u n I L I t s h o u 1 cl I) e g r o n I, e d s p :1 r i 11 g 1 y a n cl 1·1 i t h t11e ca se of CunacJiun Pucific LLC: -v- Morris <1ncJ rl e f P n cL1 n L 1,-1 cl s lJL t~'!e pres en t c ,1 s e LI I c-~ Ile worked for Lile plc1inliffs ,1s a Manager , company car when PJ e r s o n n e l a n d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n D e p a r t rn e n L. A c o m p a n y c a r 1 ti e u s u a 1 'l t · ·' we r k s . I n · p I a i n t i f { S\- , d u r i n g in tl1e j i s o n e o f ) t h, e e rn p I o y e e q i n th~ l1 i g 11 er ranks \ol ho . en j o ~ s u c t11 1 n the f r i n g e b e n e f i t s "' Ii i c I 1 e m p I o y e r s y r <'1 n t L o The clef end an L w a s on I y en L i t I e (: i 1s usu a 1 1 y those e rn p 1 o . Yee s t l1 e p r e s e n L c a s e o v1 n e r s 11 1 p o f i s t h e p 1 a i _n t i f f s p r QJ) e r t y ;i t 11 e t i m e o f u s e \ i Ls posse ss i o r1 1 r e rn a I n e cJ i1 l I o Vie cl to u s e L11 £} l h c c iJ r , T l1 e l ·J t :_ o r : ,:. ., , ·~ r. · ct e fend ant has s i n c e ceased to be an e 111 p l o ye r of L 11 e p'l a i n t i ff s :i I t:. w o u l d b e d i f f i c u l L t o s u p p o r t ~ n t i t I e cl em p 1 o y e e s .- to en j o y a fr i n g e be n e f i t i s s t i I I l ~l ran t e d Lo , h i s v i e v1 L !1 c1 L I 1 e i s u::, u a I I y vi l1 i c 11 T 11 e is no f) l a i n 1, 1 f f s a re e r1 L i L 1 e c.l the car as o 1,-1 n e r s are pro L e'c t e cJ • r i g ht of o v1 n er .s :1 i p o f who c ·o n t r o l misuse p l a i n t i f f s wt) u 1 d b e p O \oi e r l e s s . preventing such m) suse or damage. \ t h e ., cl e f e n d a n t He may i t . the c a r w 11' en longer their employee ~ The plaintiff cabnot now , r e g a r cl. i n g h o w h e u s e s cause ~ eliberate damaqe 11 e i t and t h e c a r . to T·r e y w O u 1 ci l1 a V e n O me a n s may the of to en s u re L ! 1 a L t he i r r i u 11 L s u v ~ r T 11 e y c c1 n no t s a f e g u a r cJ L he i r 1 i s u s e d by the defend a n t i t ~· -~·-:::::~ - " T 11 e d e f e n cl a n L ca u s e da mage to i t may o cc a s s i on g re a t very d i ff i c u l t cJ r i v i n g 11 i1 s n o 1·111 i c Ii v, i l I no t I i 11 c e ri c e . I) e cover e ci l o s s to t 11 e p 1 a i n L i f f s . 11 i rn . to rec o v er cJ a rn a g e s f r o 1n !ie rnay dr i VP: i t ancl by T his i L 1~ o u l cl p r o lJ a I> 1 y be insurance. I a m s a t i s f i e d o n t 11 e f a c t s o f t 11 i s c rJ s e t h a t t l1 e If on a pplicant has sl101t1n strong probability of sufferin g damage. 11 a s suffered damage u s a re s u l t o f LI 1 e vii L 11\J : cl w a I of the c a r h i m h e \'I i 1 1 c e r t a i n I y o b t a i n a d e q u a t e c o m p e r I s a t i o n f r o III L h e p 1 a i n t i ff . irreriur0ble tl1e defendant shal I prove tl1at lie f r o rn 11 ave u n cl c rt a ken to p il y cl o rn c1 rJ es tl1e otl1er cJ e f e 11 cJirn l to LI I e T 11 e y lic1r1<J 1 i n t 11 e event t 11 u t i t i s prove J L 11 a t an \ granted. l \ r e f u s i n 0 a n iJ111 01 i n .i u n c t i o 11 the e X C: e iJ L i On cJ l C (IS e S i n g 1~ a n t i 11 g l tl\e vie ,,., Ll1r1L more \·/ 11 i C l1 t il a 1-: i n rr: ,l n cl c1 t o r y i n J u n c L i o 11 . 0 n e O f e n t i t l e ci t o g r ,2 n t a i t . \•/ OU t (! i n j u 11 c L i on 1,,1 il s vi r on ~J I y i1i1rm v1c:Jlci be occr1si o11ed I L ti i n k I: i1 a t t i, i s i n i s I) e ;-1 er f CCL 1 y 3 I . . _ .. I T I l e a )) p [ i C cl L i O 17 i S S U C C e S S f U l . cl efendant do N i s s a n [3 l u e G i r d r e g i s L r a t i o n r,1 o . G H 3 3 5 f3 . forLln,it,11 permit i S O , , l C r (' cJ tlir plair1Lirfs Lo [ L ti\ ('. I, l 1 cl l recover ll1 0 i r - - I MAD E 1 N C il amber s L 11 i s 1 s t [3 1 an L'y re . <J cl y o f ll r c e 111 I) e 1~ , 1 9 9 3 , a L