(CMR) The Grand Court has dismissed Sandra Clyatt Meekins's claim against Lori-Ann Foley for damages for trespass and nuisance arising from the destruction of a “slave wall” in George Town.
Justice Marlene Carter handed down the judgment after Foley made an application for a Summary Judgment on Defence to determine whether Meekins had a realistic prospect of success on the claim. The application did not include other defendants in the matter.
Last March, Meekins filed a claim against Leslie Harvey Jnr/Harvey Construction (First Defendant), Lori-Ann Foley (Second Defendant), and Leslie Harvey Snr (Third Defendant) after the wall, which she said has been on family property for almost a century was destroyed and stolen. The wall was reportedly built by slaves over 200 years ago.
The statement of claim records that Meekins owns the property, which adjoins that of Foley, the Second Defendant, and her husband. Meekins' property is bound in part by the rock wall, commonly referred to as a slave wall. In 2022, Foley and her husband erected a chain-link fence to surround their property.
According to Meekins' claim, the application for Planning permission was not sought in advance of the erection of the fence. The application stated that the second defendants wished to have the fence in place to keep their dogs safe during construction and renovations. There was also a claim that there was trespassing from other neighbors who had vandalized and destroyed their walls.
According to court documents, Meekins objected to the application. Foley, through her Attorneys, wrote to the Department of Planning stating, inter alia: “Last July 9, we received a letter from the owner of blocks 15E Parcel 45 requesting to leave the rock wall and vegetation along the property untouched. These have sentimental value and work as privacy screens and serve both of the properties. Our client, Ms. Lori-Ann Foley, agreed to comply with the request of the adjacent parcel owner and will not remove the existing rock wall and vegetation.
Meekins said that she would not have consented to the erection of the chain link fence against the boundary to her property if Foley had stated an intention to remove the wall and vegetation or to damage the wall in any way.
Meekins claims that on 17 August 2022, Foley “permitted the first and third defendants to demolish the slave wall and cut down and remove[d] a significant amount of vegetation on the plaintiff’s property.”
She also claimed the third defendants damaged another fence on her Property.
The first-named First Defendant is an employee of Harvey’s Construction Limited. The Third Defendant is the co-owner and director of HCL and the father of the First Defendant and the Applicant.
Meekins further claims that: “In breach of the promise made to CPA the second defendants permitted the wall to be demolished and stolen. The second defendants [were] aided and abetted in their destruction of
the Plaintiff’s property by the first and third defendants.”
Meekins is of the view that because Foley, one of the owners of the property adjoining hers, procured the approval of the Department of Planning for the erection of a chain link fence between the properties and, at the time, acknowledged the existence of the slave wall and gave assurances that in the erection of the chain link fence, the wall would not be damaged or destroyed, she was legally liable when other owners of that property upon which the chain link fence was to be erected allegedly damaged the slave wall and in so doing, also trespassed upon Meekin's property.
Foley denied that she was involved in, aware of, or gave anyone permission for any works that resulted in the demolition of the wall or any resulting damage.
According to a court document, Foley said, “I was entirely unaware of any intention to demolish the wall, I gave no permission for the wall to be demolished, and I had no knowledge of it after the fact until informed by CMR.”
Justice Carte in her judgment said There is no evidence presented to support the assertion that Foley aided and abetted the First and Third Defendants in causing a nuisance to the Plaintiff in the demolition of the wall and destruction of vegetation and also that she permitted the removal of the stones which made up the slave wall.
The evidence that the property was owned jointly with the First and Third Defendants and another does
not assist the Plaintiff in this regard, the judgment stated.
The judgment further stated that the First and Third Defendants’ actions and presence on Foley’s and their property do not depend on Foley's connection to the property. As co-owners, they are themselves directly connected to the property.
“It is conspicuous that there is no assertion by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim that the First and Third Defendants were, at the time of the alleged demolition of the wall, involved in the erection of the chain-link fence, which is the matter that is more directly and particularly linked to the Applicant (Foley),” the judgment continued.
“I find that the application for summary judgment by the Second Defendant on her Defence should be allowed. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant is dismissed. The Plaintiff will pay the Applicant’s costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed,” Justice Carter stated.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid