T&T traffic laws: Speeding

After reading the Trinidad Express’ article which tells of the ASP’s ‘warning’ that there will be “Zero tolerance for speeding & drunk driving during the holidays”, I was a little confused as to exactly how the law regarding speeding is going to be enforced in Trinidad & Tobago. 

Firstly, considering that speed guns won’t be here until February 2014, I see this is vacuous rhetoric.

Secondly, however, we all know that speed-guns aren’t the only way to determine whether or not a car is speeding; sometimes we can just tell, right?

In Ohio, USA, in a 5-1 judgement, the case of Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5, 2010-Ohio-2420 determined that a police officer’s "unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed is strong enough to support a ticket and conviction”, but this ONLY applies if the officer has been trained and certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or similar organization.

We have no such organisation in Trinidad & Tobago or even in the wider Caribbean, or as a matter of fact, nothing even internationally that our TTPS officers are subjected to.

Yet, from my understanding, the ASP is suggesting that a police officer parked at the side of the highway can issue a speeding ticket that will hold up in court? Are we saying that a police officer --who has NEVER been trained in speed estimation--, cannot be wrong? And this is before I raise the issue of the intelligence and education of our officers...

Now, thirdly, we have pacing, which is when the police officer following or "pacing" a suspected speeder uses his/her own speedometer to clock the suspect's speed. This technique has many rules to be followed in the countries that use them and also comes with numerous problems, bringing into question its reliability.

I am in no way condoning speeding, but using arbitrary regulations to “police” speeding will only create problems.

I for one know that if, upon my return to T&T next week, I am given one of these ridiculous tickets, I will definitely test our legal system.


HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!

Land Law: Proprietary & Promisory Estoppel

Q: My father allowed a lady and her five children to live on his land and chattel house. It has been about 8 years and he has decided he wanted to make improvements. The "lady" has never paid rent. He asked the "lady" to leave and she took him to court claiming she made renovations to the home. The case was heard in court and she was awarded the house and my father remains the landowner. How is this possible??

The text I used in Law school

A: He lost because of the doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel

Proprietary estoppel arises where:-

(a) the owner of land (O) induces, encourages or allows the Claimant (C) to believe that he has or will enjoy some right or benefit over O’s property

(b) in reliance upon this belief, C acts to his detriment** to the knowledge of O and

(c) O then seeks to take unconscionable advantage of C by denying him the right or benefit which he expected to receive

The leading case on the matter is Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862]:

The father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a memorandum and presenting it to him “for the purpose of furnishing himself with a dwelling-house”. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on the land. When the father died, the elder son disputed his brother’s title.

It is just as easy to fall into the other category of estoppel; Promissory Estoppel.

Promissory Estoppel is when one party depends on the promise or conduct of another and acts in his/her detriment in reliance on that promise.

—  First established in: Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)

—  Clearly laid down in: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]

—  Fully restated and defined by Lord Denning in: Combe v Combe [1951]

When can the doctrines be used?

Proprietary estoppel can be used to take the owner to court, whereas, promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence when taken to court by the owner. 

Equitable Estoppel: Possible merger of Proprietary & Promissory Estoppel

In Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988), the Court handed down its most significant decision on the topic of estoppel. The significance of this case was that it consolidated promissory and proprietary estoppels into the single, and broader, principle of equitable estoppel!

**Detriment

 Alan v El Nasr [1972]

Detrimental reliance is not a requirement of promissory estoppel. It only needs to be established that the promisor has changed their position

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988)

However, … minor expenditure such as day to day living expenses or minor repairs will not qualify.

Tenancy Rights: Quiet Enjoyment

Q: I previously briefly mentioned quiet enjoyment in May 2010, but today I need to elaborate based on this question: Does the law allow for a single tenant to host an event which will disrupt the peace and quiet of other tenants?

A: Yes, as long as there is no continuous, long term disturbance.

Quiet Enjoyment 

Based on case-law, all landlords are under an implied obligation to allow their tenants “quiet enjoyment” of the rental premises. No one, including the landlord, his/her employee or agent shall interfere with a tenant’s right to possession of and to the lawful use and enjoyment of the premises. 

Substantial Interference

It has long been understood that the word “quiet” in quiet enjoyment does not mean the absence of noise, although a number of cases on the subject have been noise related.  “Quiet” in this context means without interference.  Interference with the right of quiet enjoyment must be substantial and what amounts to substantial will always depend on the facts of the case.  

For example: London Borough of Southwark v Mills, Baxter v LB Camden [1999] 3 WLR 939

Mills & Baxter were tenants in government properties owned by the Borough. Their complaints related to the lack of soundproofing in the apartments, which meant they could hear the daily activities of their neighbours, such as walking across the floor, using the toilet, watching television, so they brought actions in nuisance against the Borough.

House of Lords' decision:
There was no nuisance. Nuisance is based on the concept of the reasonable user, and.the use of the apartments was reasonable. The claimants had not sought to argue that the neighbours created excessive noise or act in ways which were unreasonable. The Borough could not therefore be liable for authorising a nuisance that did not exist.

.

A temporary interference is also unlikely to give rise to a successful claim.
Essentially, in order to be successful in claiming a breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant a tenant must prove that:

1.       there has been a new activity after the grant of the lease; and

2.       that there has been serious and persistent disturbance to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.