Harrigan v Lloyd

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Satrohan Singh J.
• Judgment Date: 04 June 1991
• Neutral Citation: AI 1991 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 37 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Date: 04 June 1991

High Court

Singh, J.

No. 37 of 1987

Harrigan

and

Lloyd

Miss Joyce Kentish, Miss Paulette Harrigan with her for the Plaintiff.

Dr. Henry Browne, Mr Courtney Abel with him for the Defendant.

Res judicata - Claim by plaintiff that executor (the dependant) was in breach of its fiduciary duty in failing to transfer a parcel of land to him, the beneficiary under a will — Finding by High Court that the Court of Appeal had already ruled in another suit that the plaintiff was not owner of the land — Court of Appeal decision sacrosanct and binding on all. Action dismissed.

1 Satrohan Singh J. Joseph Benjamin Harrigan of Shoal Bay Anguilla (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died on November 23, 1963. He left a Will dated July 24th 1962 probate of which was granted to the defendant on July 22nd 1964. The plaintiff is and was at all material times the lawful issue of the deceased and claims to be beneficially entitled to

“All that piece or parcel of land originally described and contained - Registration Section East Central Block 89118B Parcel 23”

2 under and by virtue of the aforesaid will. The defence denies this entitlement of the plaintiff.

3 By the aforesaid will the plaintiff was made the beneficiary of the following specific devisees

• (1) My house at Shoal Bay and the land on which it stands being six and one half acres more or less, I will to my Son Evelyn St. Clair Harrigan

• (2) Balsam Bottom is to be divided equally between James, Sinclair and Ernest.

• (3) Shoal Bay Sandy Ground being one and one quarter acres more or less to go to Sinclair.

4 The plaintiff alleges that from the date of the Grant of Probate the plaintiff made repeated requests of the defendant to administer the estate of the deceased the deceased in accordance with the terms and conditions of the will but the defendant failed and/or neglected to do so and that in or about the year 1981, the defendant without the knowledge and or consent of the plaintiff subdivided the aforesaid parcel 23 into five parcels of land duet creating Parcels 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31.

5 The defence denies this allegation of neglect on their part and state that the defendant always acknowledged the plaintiff's beneficial interest under the will and he acted honestly, reasonably and conscientiously to administer the estate. The defence admits the aforesaid subdivision but said it was done with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and in order to give effect to the will of the deceased.

6 On July 17, 1981 Mr Justice St. Bernard, in Suit No. 5 of 1981 between the same parties made the following Consent Order:

• 1. That the respondent do administer the Estate of Joseph Benjamin Harrigan, deceased without further delay.

• 2. That the Parcel of land with the house thereon, originally recorded as Parcel 23 of Sheet No.89118B at Shoal Bay be transferred to the Appellant.

• 3. That the Applicant's 1/3 share of Balsam Bottom be transferred to him.

• 4. That the Respondent prepare a true account of the estate by the 15th day of November, 1981.

• 5. Such further Orders in this matter be stayed pending the presentation of the above accounts.

7 The defence admits the institution of that Suit and the making of the Consent Order therein but denies that the plaintiff was and is entitled, to parcel 27 under the said Will and/or that the defendant consented to an Order which entitled the plaintiff to have parcel 27 transferred to him. The defence states that at the time of the institution of that suit by the plaintiff, the plaintiff knew that parcel 27 and the beneficial entitlement to it by virtue of the Will, was in dispute by way of a motion in High Court Suit No.38 of 1976 between Connell Lorenzo Harrigan and George Emmanuel Lloyd.

8 The defence also states that, with the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant as executor of the will, honestly and reasonably intended to transfer and vest parcel 27 in the names of Eileen and Edris Harrigan being the person beneficially entitled to the property and that parcel 27 constituted “the Western Sandy Ground” but that in High Court Suit No.38 of 1976 Connell Harrigan v. George Emmanuel Lloyd it was determined on November 6, 1984, that on the true construction of the Will Lot 27 was “the bush land at Shoal Bay” and the Court ordered that one acre of land be measured out from lot 27 and be registered in the name of Wendell Harrigan and the remainder if any be registered in the name of Connell Lorenzo Harrigan who had purchased the said land from Edris and Haraldo Harrigan for value.

9 That matter went on appeal, and, in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1984 Connell Harrigan vs George Emmanuel Lloyd, the appeal was allowed in part and the court ordered that the land comprised in lot 27 Block 89118B be registered in the name of Connell Lorenzo Harrigan who claimed entitlement to same by virtue of title obtained from Edris and Haraldo Harrigan under the aforesaid will and passed on to Connell Harrigan for value.

10 The defence also states that in or about 1969, the plaintiff knew and made no objection to the defendant's efforts to transfer lot 27 to Edris Harrigan and made no objection until about 1987, to the claim to lot 27 by Sylvia and Haraldo Harrigan who claimed entitlement to it under the said will. The defence contends that the plaintiff is barred by acquiescence from maintaining any claim to lot 27 or payment in respect of any claim to ownership of lot 27.

11 The plaintiff states that on or about 1982, the defendant transferred parcels 28, 29, 30 and 31 to the plaintiff but that in breach of the aforementioned consent order and in breach of trust, the defendant failed to transfer parcel 27 to him and to vest in the plaintiff his full entitlement under the will.

12 As particulars of the allegation of breach of trust, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of being in breach of his fiduciary duty as trustee when: he failed to disclose to the Court in Suit No. 38/1976 Harrigan v. Lloyd and to the Court of Appeal in the appeal from the determination of that suit, that under the will and the consent order, parcel 27 was the property of the plaintiff and that Connell Harrigan could have no beneficial interest in the land nor could he acquire good title to same.

13 Another allegation of breach of trust, is that the defendant failed and/or neglected to notify the plaintiff, then a resident of the United Kingdom, of the aforesaid proceedings, thus affording him an opportunity to join in the proceedings and assert his entitlement to parcel 27. The defence states that while the plaintiff was entitled to the “house at Shoal Bay and the land on which its stand being six and a half acres more or less” which formed part of the undivided land originally described and contained in Registration Section East Central Block 89118B parcel 23, the defendant denies that the plaintiff was entitled to the entire parcel including parcel 27 of the subsequently divided parcel 23, as parcel 27 was subject to a different bequest under the said Will.

14 The defence denies the allegations of a breach of trust, and pleads the doctrines of Laches and Acquiescence in the alternative, if he is found to be in breach. The defence then sets out the particulars in support of the pleas of Laches and Acquiescence.

15 The plaintiff contends that as a result of the decision of the Court...