This Is Guernsey

By Nigel Baudains

PARISH officials can be sued in an individual capacity, the Petty Debts Court has ruled.

Castel constable Barry Paint was told he must pay £200 for the damage caused to Steve Ogier’s van when he supervised moving it by tractor in the car park next to Checkers Xpress, Cobo, in June.

His advocate, Mark Dunster, said Deputy Paint was prepared to pay that amount.

But Mr Ogier said that would not cover his costs and he will consider his position during a seven-day period ordered by assistant-Magistrate Cherry McMillen.

She said that if both wished to follow her advice they could do so and the matter would be withdrawn.

But if either or both chose not to, she would make a formal judgement and an appeal could be made to the Royal Court.

The groundbreaking case is back in court again on Wednesday.

For Deputy Paint, Advocate Dunster argued that Mr Ogier had sued the wrong party and he should have actioned the constables and douzaine as a body.

If the court ruled in Mr Ogier’s favour it would have huge implications for the whole parish system as people would not want to undertake what were voluntary roles, he said.

‘Advocate Dunster was unable to direct me by reference to customary or case law,’ said Miss McMillen.

‘It would be wrong to create immunity for a parish official when none exists in law.’

There was no legal impediment that prevented a plaintiff from taking action against somebody whom they believed was responsible for damaging their vehicle.

Miss McMillen said she had no doubt that Deputy Paint had been acting in good faith under instruction from the senior constable.

He was a man of honour and integrity who did what he did in the best interests of the parishioners.

Deputy Paint considered the van, which was full of wood and tyres, to be a fire hazard as someone had threatened to ‘torch it’.

But Miss McMillen said Deputy Paint had not taken advice on this from somebody with expertise, such as the Fire & Rescue Service.

Police were unable to tell Deputy Paint who owned the van due to data protection laws but he could have left a note on it or issued an appeal through the media.

It was not good enough to justify moving the vehicle with a tractor on cost grounds. The front wheels of the vehicle were locked and a professional with the proper equipment should have been employed.

Mr Ogier had claimed £750.

‘The plaintiff has been unable to satisfy me that the value of the vehicle is £750,’ said Miss McMillen. ‘He has not supported his monetary claim.’

Mr Ogier told the court how he had bought the van for £200, but had carried out improvements to it.

Because it was manufactured in 1991 he had been unable to obtain a book price for it from a trader so he had drawn price comparisons with similar vehicles being sold on auction website eBay.

He accepted that the £1,000 cost of repairs to the van exceeded its value.

Miss McMillen said the award was based on what Mr Ogier had paid for the vehicle.

At the start of the hearing, Mr Ogier refused an opportunity to change the case to an action against the douzaine and constables.

Miss McMillen said she thought his judgement might have been clouded by the fact that he had been arrested for a short time on the evening in question when he drove by as the van was being moved.

She said Mr Ogier should have accepted the £200 that the parish had offered him for the vehicle.

She said costs would not be awarded to Mr Ogier.

Article posted on 13th April, 2009 - 2.30pm