Rainero v Cumber
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Malone, C.J.) |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1992 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 20 May 1992 |
(Malone, C.J.)
Mrs. E. Messer for the defendant;
G. Giglioli for the third party.
(1) Adams v. Morgan & Co. Ltd., [1923] 2 K.B. 234; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 189, followed.
(2) Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v. AnsellELR(1888), 39 Ch. D. 339; [1886–90] All E.R. Rep. 65, followed.
(3) Brittain v. LloydENR(1845), 14 M. & W. 762; 153 E.R. 683, followed.
Rules of the Supreme Court, O.18, r.19: The relevant terms of this rule are set out at page 130, lines 35–39.
Agency-rights of agent-indemnity from principal-if agent liable to third party following principal”s breach of contract, entitled to indemnity from principal notwithstanding own liability to third party
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract.
The plaintiff rented an apartment from the defendant who acted as agent for the owner, the third party. The full rent was paid in advance to the defendant and was paid by her to the third party. The plaintiff found the condition of the apartment unsatisfactory and sought a refund as he no longer wished to occupy it. The defendant, acting on her own behalf and not as agent for the third party, then entered into a second agreement with the plaintiff to refund to him the money he had paid to cover his continuing occupation of the premises. She refunded approximately half of the sum due but failed to pay the rest. The plaintiff then brought the present proceedings to recover the outstanding sum.
The defendant obtained leave to serve a third party notice on the owner of the apartment as she claimed that it was his responsibility to maintain the property in a rentable condition. She submitted that she was entitled to be indemnified by him with respect to any refunds due to the plaintiff. The third party applied to strike out the third party notice on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court. He submitted that third party proceedings and the liability to indemnify the defendant did not arise out of the plaintiff”s action as that action was based on her second agreement with the defendant when she was no longer acting as the agent of the third party.
Held, dismissing the third party”s application:
The defendant, as an agent carrying on the business of the third party as principal, was prima facie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rainero v Cayman Rent-A-Villas
...claimed and she issued a third party notice against the third party. He failed to have the notice struck out (in proceedings reported at 1992–93 CILR 128) and the plaintiff subsequently obtained summary judgment against the defendant. At the end of December, the defendant arranged an inspec......