Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Individual for Removing Slave Wall

In March 2023, Sandra Kayle Clyatt Meekins filed a claim for damages against Leslie Harvey Jnr/Harvey Construction, Lori-Ann Foley, and Leslie Harvey Snr for the removal of a slave wall from her property. Meekins claimed that the slave wall, constructed over 200 years ago, held sentimental value as it had been on the property for approximately 100 years. The defendants allegedly demolished the wall without permission, leading to damage to the property. Meekins sought damages for this alleged trespass and private nuisance.

The Second Defendant, Lori-Ann Foley, sought a summary judgment to dismiss the claim against her. The basis for this request was that Meekins’ claims against Foley had no reasonable prospect of success and that she would not be able to recover more than nominal damages from Foley. Foley denied any involvement in the demolition of the wall and stated that she was unaware of any intention to demolish it. Meekins argued that Foley, as a joint owner of the adjacent property, was implicated due to the relationship between the properties.

The judge ruled in favor of the Second Defendant, Lori-Ann Foley, dismissing the case against her but not against the First and Third Defendants. The judge determined that Meekins did not present enough evidence to show a realistic prospect of success against Foley. There was no clear connection between Foley and the actions of the First and Third Defendants, who were directly responsible for the demolition of the wall. Despite Meekins’ claims, the judge found that she had not established a strong case against Foley.

Meekins claimed damages for the removal of the slave wall, vegetation, and fence on her property. She alleged that the defendants had trespassed on her property and caused damage without permission. Meekins’ efforts to have the wall rebuilt by the First and Third Defendants were unsuccessful, leading to further accusations of theft and destruction of property. The judge concluded that Meekins had not provided enough evidence to support her claims against the Second Defendant.

Ultimately, the judge dismissed the case against Lori-Ann Foley but did not dismiss it against the First and Third Defendants. Meekins was ordered to pay the Second Defendant’s costs for the application. The ruling highlighted the lack of evidence connecting Foley to the demolition of the wall and emphasized the need for a realistic prospect of success in legal claims. It remains to be seen whether the First and Third Defendants will also seek summary judgment in their favor based on similar grounds.