Stanford Financial Group Ltd Appellant v Leslie Hoffman Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: REDHEAD, J.A.,Justice of Appeal,Chief Justice,Albert Redhead,Sir Dennis Byron,Ephraim Georges,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] ECSC J0527-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2002
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Date: 14 November 2002

[2002] ECSC J0527-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice

The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2002

Between:

Stanford Financial Group Ltd.

Appellant

and

Leslie Hoffman

Respondent

Appearances:

Mr. Justin Simon for the Appellant

Mr. Charlesworth Browne with Mr. Kendrickson Kentish for the Respondent

REDHEAD, J.A.

1 Stanford Financial Group Limited, the Appellant, owns and publishes the "Antigua Sun" which is now a daily newspaper in Antigua. The Respondent, Leslie Hoffman, and her husband Robert Hoffman, were both employed by the Appellant on contract. Both the Respondent and her husband were recruited from California to work for the Newspaper.

2 Robert Hoffman was employed as Editor in Chief and General Manager of the Company. The Respondent was employed as Managing Editor and reported to her husband. By letter dated 17 ^th day of September 1998, the Appellant terminated Robert Hoffman's services for incompetence and gross mismanagement.

3 The Respondent's contract of service with the company was for a minimum term of five years. The contract document stipulates:

"The company requires a minimum five year commitment from you."

4 The Respondent took up her employment with the company in December 1996 at a salary of US $35,000 per annum or US $2916.67 (per month). At the Antigua Sun she supervised Louis Daniel, Mitzie Allen and Collin James, well known local journalists among others who were her subordinate. After Mr. Robert Hoffman's dismissal on 17 ^th September 1998, a Mr. Vernon Khelawan was appointed Editor-in-Chief. The Respondent then reported to Mr. Khelawan.

5 On 7 ^th October 1998 about 20 days after the dismissal of the Respondent's husband, her position as Managing Editor was purportedly eliminated and she was given the post of Barbuda Editor.

6 As Managing Editor the Industrial Court found that her duties were vital to the operations of the Newspaper. Without notice she was transferred from the post of Managing Editor to Barbuda Editor. She was asked to vacate her office which was taken over by Mr. Louis Daniel, a subordinate and to report to him.

7 However, the respondent was told that the position of Barbuda Editor was eliminated before she took up the position. The respondent's position with the company was terminated by letter of October 9, 1998 on the ground that the former position of Managing Editor was abolished. The Industrial Court found as a fact that the respondent's duties were not eliminated, but were divided between the new Editor-in-Chief and the News Editor.

8 In my considered judgment, the company having sacked the respondent's husband, the intention was to get rid of her any way. The offer of the post of Barbuda Editor to the respondent was a means by which to fulfill that intention.

9 On 22 ^nd April 1999 the respondent filed a Memorandum in the Industrial Court claiming compensation for unfair dismissal. In that Memorandum the respondent contended, inter alia, that the appellant acted unreasonably in dismissing her and in the process treated her in a harsh and degrading manner.

10 The Industrial Court found in favour of the respondent and awarded damages as follows:—

• (1) Basic award for loss of Protection: $5349.06,

• (2) Future loss: $30,000 less $11,902.25 deducted as a result of which sum she had received as compensation for her years of service, Notice pay and Vacation pay.

• (3) Cost of travel to and from Antigua and accommodation: US $6000 making a total of $29, 461.81 plus vacation pay $2917.67.

11 The appellant is dissatisfied with this award and has appealed to this Court. Five grounds of appeal were filed on behalf of the appellant.

• (1) The respondent could not be entitled to any sum in respect of vacation pay in the absence of any such claim and her evidence that she had received a sum on her dismissal which included vacation pay due for her period of employment.

• (2) The award of exemplary damages is so unreasonably large as to be excessive and with little or no consideration of the legal principles on which such an award is made.

• (3) The award of the sum of US $30,000.00 as exemplary damages constitutes approximately 10 months salary in the circumstances in which compensation for manner of dismissal was nil and did not warrant additional punishment for any outrageous conduct

• (4) That the court took into account irrelevant matters such as the events of September 11 ^th, 2001 in the United States and the risk of air travel in determining both its award for exemplary damages and costs to the employee.

• (5) That there was no mathematical basis or sufficient monetary evidence of expenses which would justify the sum of US $6,000.00 as a proper award for costs or evidence of any exceptional circumstances as required by law to justify the award for costs.

12 I deal with ground one...