A businessman was awarded nominal damages for $200 tala in a claim of more than $700,000 he sought against a lawyer in a business deal that went wrong. 

Businessman Alapati Brown had sued lawyer Pau Mulitalo for “rent” of machinery and equipment allegedly withheld by for the sum of $733,000. 

In turn, Pau also filed a counterclaim against Brown seeking “compensatory damages” for breach of contract and other damages cost to the tune of $1.1 million 

The business deal began in May 2015 when Pau engaged Brown to construct a small single-storey shop that would also serve as a law office in Lalovaea. 

It was a relationship that did not last long, by the end of May the businessman and defendant had a dispute and Pau terminated the purported contract to construct the shop. 

Following termination, the defendant withheld tools and items belonging to the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff lodged a police complaint and the defendant was then charged and ultimately convicted of obtaining by deception and fined $2000. 

The plaintiff brought proceedings to recover damages allegedly arising from the defendant withholding tools belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence.

In his reserved judgment delivered last week, Supreme Court Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke ruled for the plaintiff by way of nominal damages for $200 tala awarded to him. 

In his discussion, Justice Clarke said Brown and the defendant were both unsatisfactory witnesses. 

The Court noted despite some 30 years of extensive experience and his practice by his admission he commenced work with the defendant without a written contract. 

“Having also accepted that full architectural drawings are needed for a building permit and there were no such full architectural drawings for the defendant’s work, he could not remember whether a building permit was obtained and confirmed he did not sight either a building permit or development consent,” said Justice Clarke. 

“Further, he unconvincingly disowned any responsibility for obtaining a building permit from MWTI or lodging any variations to the building once such variations were carried out. 

“He said these were the defendant’s responsibility. This is despite Mr. Brown having been the person who engaged with and obtained from MWTI the single-page drawing annexure “A” Floor Plan and Elevations to exhibit P1 which he then apparently used to build. 

“I am satisfied that Mr Brown was aware no approvals had been obtained for the work and proceeded with the work nevertheless.” 

In regards to the lawyer Pau, Justice Clarke said he too was an unreliable witness who by his own admission had misled the Police in the course of their investigation to recover Brown’s items in 2015. 

“As a lawyer, he had told Police that he had a “court order” over Mr Brown’s tools when he possessed no such order.”

Justice Clarke said was not satisfied that the defendant rented out any of the equipment nor was the equipment used to complete his work. The claim for damages based on rent must therefore fail.

The Court was however satisfied that a nominal damages award was warranted which was fixed at $200 tala. 

“Although costs often do not necessarily follow the event where an award of nominal damages is made, given the conduct of the defendant, costs should follow the event in this case,” said Justice Clarke. 

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.