Bradshaw v Gumbs

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 June 1999
• Neutral Citation: AI 1999 HC 6
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 94 of 1998
• Date: 17 June 1999

High Court

Saunders, J.

Civil Suit No. 94 of 1998

Bradshaw

and

Gumbs

Appearances:

Ms Paulette Harrigan for the plaintiff

Mr John Wigley with Mrs Marla Wigley for the defendant

Trust - Implied trust — Trust arising from common intention of the parties that financial contribution of defendant would give her share in property.

Facts: Plaintiff, owner of land — Construction of house on land — Defendant with whom he had a relationship assisted with construction — Whether common intention that defendant should benefit from the acquisition of the house.

Held: Common intention existed. Defendant entitled to share in house. Plaintiff must therefore pay defendant 17% of the value.

Saunders, J.

1 The plaintiff and the defendant have enjoyed a relationship with each other since 1980. In 1993, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant and asked him for his assistance in the construction of a house. She had the plans for that house drawn by an architect. At her invitation he looked at those plans. He gave her expert advice about the plans. A house was subsequently constructed on the site.

2 We had evidence from each of the parties in relation to the nature and the extent of the work done by the defendant on that house.

3 I looked at all the evidence which was given very carefully and it seems to me that the plaintiff was extremely grudging in stating the precise level of work done by the defendant on that house.

4 I note first of all that in the Statement of Claim, there is absolutely no mention at all of the defendant having made any contribution what-so-ever to the construction of that house. Instead, reading the statement of claim one would get the impression that the defendant was a complete stranger to the manner in which that house was erected. The plaintiff very reluctantly admitted that the defendant had purchased plumbing fixtures, that he had tendered expert advice regarding the plan and that, far from simply rendering a little labour on the house, he was actually the construction supervisor, the virtual contractor on that house.

5 The plaintiff was also very reluctant to state fully the level of the assistance rendered by the defendant's sons. Consequently, in so far as the evidence concerning the building of that house is concerned, I was more impressed with the evidence of the defendant. The plaintiff was very reluctant to divulge to the court the true nature of the defendant's role.

6 The other fundamental issue in the case, perhaps of a lesser importance so far as money is concerned, is the issue of the manner in which the plaintiff was treated physically by the defendant. I accept the plaintiff's version of what occurred. I believe that she was stressed out and that the defendant's conduct was inappropriate. I believe that he has a volatile temper; that he attempted to burn down the house by throwing kerosene on the rug; that he struck her; and that he destroyed the telephone on more than one occasion. I accept the plaintiffs evidence on those matters and therefore I will grant the relief which was claimed thereon. There should be an injunction restraining him from assaulting, molesting, annoying or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff.

7 As regards the question of the house, in my judgment, the contribution made by the defendant was a substantial one. I think the evidence is clear that for houses that are built here in Anguilla, you can assume that the labour input is at least approximately 50%. That evidence came from Oliver Brooks. To a certain extent it is supported by the evidence of Boyston Webster. The latter in his valuation placed the labour input at almost approximately one half of the total value that was found by him.

8 I have already referred to my findings as to the degree of work which was done by the defendant. The question is whether the court can imply a trust in his favour. The legal estate vests in the plaintiff and therefore the only basis upon which the defendant can claim is on the...