Bailey v Huligar, Pantophlet, and Bryan
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | Small Davis, J. |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | AI 2009 HC 16 |
| Date | 23 July 2009 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
| Docket Number | AXAHCV 97 of 2008 |
High Court
Small Davis, J. (Ag.)
AXAHCV 97 of 2008
Mrs. Tara Ruan instructed by Caribbean Juris Chambers for the claimant.
Ms. Nicola Syer instructed by Joyce Kentish & Associates for the first defendant.
Ms. Michelle Smith instructed by Keithley Lake & Associates for the second and third defendants.
Administration of Estates - Beneficiaries — Whether deceased had acquired a legal interest in the estate of a third party — Whether beneficiary could claim a share in third party's estate by virtue of acquiring the interest of the deceased — Caution — Whether cautions were wrongfully lodged.
Small Davis, J. (AG.): This is a claim instituted by Fixed Date Claim Form under CPR 67.4 by the claimant against the First defendant seeking the following relief:
The claimant also makes the usual prayer for costs and such further and other relief as the court deems just.
-
(a) removal of a Caution lodged and recorded as Instrument 2066/2006 against lands forming part of the estate of John Samuel Richardson;
-
(b) a declaration that the First defendant has no legal interest in the estate of John Samuel Richardson;
-
(c) a declaration that the negotiations, meetings and settlement discussions culminating in February 1988 were without prejudice and subject to privilege or in the alternative that there is no valid and binding agreement between the Administrators and the first defendant;
-
(d) a declaration that the First defendant is barred from asserting an interest in land forming part of the Estate of John Samuel Richardson;
-
(e) damages including loss of use of property and loss of investment.
John Samuel Richardson died leaving a will. The beneficiaries of his will were his daughter Louisa Ann Harrison and his grandchildren John Samuel Bailey, Glanceanna Bailey Bryan, James Adolphus Bailey and Viola Bailey Pantophlet. Louisa Ann Harrison and John Samuel Bailey subsequently died intestate and without issue. The surviving beneficiaries of the Estate are therefore Heirs of James Adolphus Bailey, Heirs of Viola Bailey Pantophlet and Heirs of Glanceanna Bryan.
The claimant is one of the Administrators of the estate of John Samuel Richardson and one of the Heirs of James Adolphus Bailey.
The First defendant (hereafter referred to as “the defendant”) is the Executor of the estate of Albert Bryan. deceased. The Third defendant is her mother. Albert Bryan was married to Glanceanna Bryan.
The Second and Third defendants are the other two co-administrators of the Estate of John Samuel Richardson. On 3rd April 2009 an acknowledgment of service was filed on their behalf in which they admit the whole of the claim and indicate that they do not intend to defend the claim. They have not taken any further part in the proceedings. I shall refer to them by name in this judgment.
The Estate of John Samuel Richardson comprises of several parcels of land in the island of Anguilla (“the Estate”). This dispute immediately concerns one of those parcels -155 acres of valuable real estate on Anguilla's southwestern coast with excellent views of St. Martin in a village known as Lockrum and registered as South Central Block 38510 B Parcel 6 (“Lockrum Estate”).
The dispute between the parties arose as a consequence of the assertion of a beneficial interest in the Estate made by and on behalf of the Estate of Albert Bryan, who was described as an unregistered part owner of Lockrum Estate. A caution was lodged against Parcel 6 on 26th October 1987 by the defendant on the basis of this alleged interest. The defendant asserted that Albert Bryan had acquired a 1/5th interest in Lockrum Estate by way of purchase of Louisa Ann Harrison's share. Albert Bryan bequeathed that interest to the defendant.
In 1988 there were negotiations between the parties with their lawyers present. It is fair to say that the parties embarked upon those negotiations as a result of the existence of the caution. On 6th February 1988 following a meeting at the home of Theodora Bryan at which all four parties to this suit and their legal representatives were present, Mr. C. Fitzroy Bryant who was the lawyer for the claimant and Dennis Pantophlet wrote a letter to Ms. Joyce Kentish, the defendant's lawyer, in the following terms:
“I write to seek formal confirmation of the matters agreed between Mr. Dennis Pantophlet, Ms. Merle Bailey and Mrs. Theodora Bryan, the Administrators of the Estate of John Samuel Richardson deceased, of the one part, and Mrs. Bernadine Huligar, representing the Heirs of Albert Bryan deceased, of the other part, at a meeting attended by the four (4) above named persons, you and me on Wednesday 3 February 1988 at the home of Mrs. Theodora Bryan, West End, Anguilla.
Please confirm that it was agreed between the parties as follows:
Heirs of Albert Bryan deceased — 18 acres
Heirs of Glanceanna Agatha Bailey deceased — 44 acres
Heirs of James Adolphus Bailey deceased — 44 acres
Viola Mac Pherson Bailey — 44 acres
I look forward to an urgent reply. Best Wishes.
Yours faithfully,
C. Fitzroy Bryant
Solicitor for Dennis Pantophlet and Merle Bailey
-
1. That in full settlement of all claims and/or entitlement by the Heirs of Albert Bryan deceased against and to the Estate of John Samuel Richardson deceased the lands heriditaments and premises included in the said Estate would be divided and distributed pro rata in the following way:
-
2. That the Administrators would forthwith take the necessary action to effect such division and distribution.
-
3. That the said Mrs. Bernadine Huligar would remove the Caution she had placed on the Registered Land Certificate related to the said land heriditaments and premises to enable such division and distribution to take place without delay.
The response to that letter was sent by Ms. Kentish on 8th February 1998 marked “Without Prejudice”:
We refer to your letter dated 6th February, 1988, and confirm that the contents thereof reflect the agreement arrived at between the respective parties.
Kindly furnish us with a copy of the instructions given by the Administrators of the above-mentioned Estate to the Registrar of Lands to draw up a proposed subdivision plan in accordance with the said agreement.
Yours faithfully,
Lake & Kentish
Solicitors
The Caution was removed on 9th April 1990. There is no evidence of how it came to be removed.
In April 1990 Dennis Pantophlet wrote to the persons entitled to a share of the Estate. Among the addressees was “Heirs of Albert Bryan”. In that letter he informed the beneficiaries of the expressions of interest by investors and expressed the view that efforts be made to sell Lockrum Estate as a whole, which would yield a higher selling price for the land. As a result, no efforts were made to subdivide the property.
A second Caution was lodged against Parcel 6 on 27th October 1994 on the application of the defendant. In the statutory declaration made in support of the application for the caution, the defendant's solicitor stated the basis of the application to be: (a) the Administrators had entered into negotiations for the sale of 27 acres of the land and (b) was embarking upon a subdivision of Parcel 6 in a manner and with a view to distributing the lots to exclude the defendant from the beachfront area.
It appears nothing happened for some time until September 2000 when the Administrators applied to have the caution to be removed. The caution was lifted on 13th December 2000.
In 2003 Parcel 6 was subdivided to create Parcels 175, 176 and 177. The subdivision was pursuant to the Government's acquisition of 1.52 acre of the land for the purpose of building a major thoroughfare –the Jeremiah Gumbs Highway.
In March 2006 the defendant obtained the third Caution which remains lodged against Parcels 176 and 177. The Administrators applied to have the Caution removed however, the application was dismissed by the Registrar of Lands in May 2007 after a hearing. The reason given by the Registrar of Lands was the existence of an agreement between the parties as set out in the 6th and 8th February 1988 letters and the non performance of that agreement. There was no appeal against the Registrar's decision.
In or about April 2006 the Administrators obtained approval of a subdivision plan from the Land Control Development Committee. That plan was subsequently amended and approved in July 2007. By that plan the beneficiaries under the Will each received a lot with an equal share of the beachfront land and a lot immediately adjacent to the beachfront lots and the defendant was assigned a lot of 18 acres beyond the landlocked lots and furthest from the beach. This subdivision plan was sent to the defendant's solicitors in September 2007 along with a request that the defendant take the necessary steps to lift the caution in order that the subdivision of Lockrum Estate could be pursued. The defendant's solicitors rejected the subdivision plan, protesting that it represented an inequitable distribution of the land and demanded that the Lockrum Estate be distributed in accordance with the “agreement” reached in 1988, i.e. pro rata, with all the parties receiving a proportionate share of the prime areas.
The claimant filed suit in December 2008 to resolve the dispute. The claimant and the defendant each swore an affidavit setting out their case and exhibiting supporting documentation.
At the commencement of the trial, the parties informed the court that they had agreed to dispense with cross examination on the affidavit evidence. The defendant gave oral evidence limited to the tender of a handwritten document which she said was made by her mother, Theodora Bryan, the third named defendant, and which she relied upon as proving Albert Bryan's...
To continue reading
Request your trial