Richardson et Al v Hughes
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | Blenman, J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | AI 2012 HC 3 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
| Date | 01 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | AXAHCV 36 of 2007 |
High Court
Blenman, J.
AXAHCV 36 of 2007
Ms. Ayodeji Bernard for the claimants
Mrs. Tara Ruan for the defendant
Administration of Estates - Distribution of estate — Whether claimants entitled to share of the deceased's estate — Removal of Administrator of estate.
This is a claim by Ms. Viola Richardson (Viola), Mr. Collins Richardson (Collins) and Ms. Audrey Brooks (Audrey), interchangeably referred to as Viola, Collins and Audrey all allege that they are the great nieces and nephews of Alfred Richardson, against Albert Hughes (Albert) as the Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Richardson, deceased. They say that property which formed part of the Estate of Alfred Richardson, deceased, was unlawfully disposed of by Mr. Albert Hughes. They contend that Alfred Richardson died intestate on 11th February 1886. He had no spouse, children or parents at the time of his death.
They say that Mr. Albert Hughes swore to an Affidavit of Kin based upon which he was granted Letters of Administration to Alfred Richardson's Estate. In the affidavit, they say that he incorrectly stated that he was the sole surviving heir of the estate of Alfred Richardson.
Viola, Collins and Audrey complain that Mr. Albert Hughes has, subsequent to obtaining the Letters of Administration, unlawfully vested the Estate property into his own name.
They further allege that Mr. Albert Hughes purported to act pursuant to the Letters of Administration which was granted on 3rd March 1986 and distributed the property. Viola, Collins and Audrey have also urged the court to revoke the grant of the Letters of Administration of the Estate of Alfred Richardson and to remove Albert as the Administrator of the Estate.
Additionally, they also seek an order granting them Letters of Administration of the Estate of Alfred Richardson.
Finally, Viola, Collins and Audrey seek an order to compel Mr. Albert Hughes to return the various parcels of land, which he allegedly distributed to himself and one other person, to the Estate of Alfred Richardson.
The claim is vigorously opposed by Mr. Albert Hughes. In his defence he does not admit that Viola, Collins and Audrey are the great nieces and nephew of Mr. Alfred Richardson who died intestate in 1886.
Mr. Hughes states that he is the great nephew of Mr. Alfred Richardson who died on 11th February 1886, leaving two sisters, Judith Hughes and Mary Hodge. Mary had no issue.
Mr. Albert Hughes says that his father Kedro Hughes was Judith Hughes son and therefore he (Albert) is entitled to administer the estate of Alfred Richardson.
Mr. Hughes says that the court should dismiss the claim since Viola, Collins and Audrey have failed to establish any standing to bring the claim. He also asserts that the statutory time limit for filing this claim has expired. The claim should therefore be dismissed.
Mr. Alfred Richardson died on 11th February 1886 without leaving a will. He died leaving substantial property in Anguilla. It is alleged that he died leaving three siblings: Judith Hughes nee Richardson, William Benjamin Richardson and Darbur Richardson. This is disputed by Mr. Albert Hughes who says that Mr. Alfred Richardson was only survived by his sister's Judith Hughes and Mary Hodge. Judith Hughes is also referred to as Judy Hughes.
Viola, Collins and Audrey Brook say that Alfred Richardson's Estate ought to have been divided into three equal shares between the heirs of Judy Hughes, William Richardson and Darbur Richardson. However, on the 25th July 1985 Mr. Albert Hughes swore to an Affidavit of Kin in order to obtain Letters of Administration of Mr. Alfred Richardson's Estate.
Viola, Collins and Audrey all contend that Mr. Albert Hughes, in the affidavit of kin that he filed in support of his application for Letters of Administration in the Estate of Alfred Richardson, failed to indicate that Alfred Richardson had other siblings, namely: Judith Hughes, William Richardson and Darbur Richardson. Albert stated he (Albert) was a beneficiary of Alfred's Estate and as a consequence the Letters of Administration was granted to him. Mr. Albert Hughes was thereafter able to transfer the properties which form part of Alfred Richardson's Estate into his sole name. He subsequently distributed portions of the Estate to himself and other persons.
Viola, Collins and Audrey have therefore filed the claim against Mr. Albert Hughes in his representative capacity and seek a number of orders. They ask the court to revoke the Letters of Administration that was granted to Mr. Albert Hughes or, in the alternative, to remove him as the Administrator of the Estate of Mr. Alfred Richardson.
Viola, Collins and Audrey also ask the court to order Mr. Albert Hughes to distribute the lands which form part of the Estate in accordance with the relevant rules of intestacy.
Viola, Collins and Audrey also seek an order granting them Letters of Administration in place of Mr. Albert Hughes.
In his defence, Mr. Albert Hughes maintains that at the time of filing his application for the Letters of Administration of Alfred Richardson's Estate he consulted all those members of the family whom he knew or believed to be entitled to benefit from the Estate without success. He even made enquires of persons whom he thought may have been entitled to benefit under the estate with no success.
Mr. Albert Hughes said that he never heard mention of or was he ever aware of William Richardson or Darbur Richardson as being the siblings of Mr. Alfred Richardson, deceased. He is aware that Viola, Collins and Audrey have caused cautions to be placed against the property and seeks to have them removed. He vigorously opposes the claim.
The issues that arise for the court to resolve are as follows:
-
(a) Whether Viola, Collins and Audrey are entitled to bring this claim against Mr. Albert Hughes in the above stated representative capacity.
-
(b) Whether Viola, Collins and Audrey are legally entitled to a share in the Estate of Alfred Richardson.
-
(c) Whether the limitation period for filing of this claim expired.
-
(d) Whether the court should revoke the Letters of Administration that was granted to Mr. Albert Hughes and instead grant Letters of Administration to Viola, Collins and Audrey.
-
(e) Whether the court should compel Mr. Albert Hughes to distribute the property which forms a part of Alfred Richardson's Estate in accordance with the relevant intestacy rules.
In support of the claim, Viola filed several affidavits. Mr. Collins Richardson, Estelle Hughes, Audrey Brooks and Anetta Brooks also filed affidavits in support of the claim. Apart from Viola and Collins the other persons who swore to the affidavits in support of the claim did not appear at the trial in order for their evidence to be tested. The court had specifically ordered that they ought to have attended court to be cross-examined. Mr. Albert Hughes filed an affidavit in support of his defence and was cross-examined. Accordingly, the court was unable to attach any weight to the affidavits of Ms. Estelle Hughes, Ms. Audrey Brooks and Ms. Anetta Brooks.
It is noteworthy that on the day of the hearing of the matter learned counsel Ms. Ayodeji Bernard requested an adjournment of the trial on the basis that Viola, Collins and Audrey wanted to redouble their efforts to obtain a report from an unidentified genealogist. It bears stating that several years earlier the court had granted leave to Viola, Collins and Audrey to obtain the report from a genealogist which was not forthcoming. The matter was eventually struck out by a differently constituted court on the basis of lack of standing and on appeal to the court of Appeal it was remitted to be retried.
Several years after and at the pre trial hearing, Viola, Collins and Audrey acknowledged that they required the genealogist report and were granted leave once again to provide the genealogist report. None was still forthcoming.
Learned counsel Mrs. Tara Ruan strenuously opposed the application for the adjournment in order to allow them to obtain the report from the genealogist.
The court refused to grant the adjournment and the trial proceeded.
Learned counsel Mrs. Tara Ruan submitted that Viola, Collins and Audrey have not established any evidential basis to support their standing to bring this claim. They have not adduced any evidence of birth records establishing their lineage to Mr. Alfred Richardson and accordingly this is fatal to their claim. The court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction in this regard.
Learned counsel Mrs. Ruan referred the court to Delcine Thomas v. Victor Wiklins et al ANUHCV 2007/0530 in paragraph 34 which referred to a quotation from Tristram and Cootes in which the law provides that “a person can only bring an action on behalf of an Estate pursuant to rights obtained through an Estate if a grant is obtained”. Furthermore, paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Judgment state that the claimant could not institute a claim on behalf of an Estate where there has been no grant. If Viola, Collins and Audrey say that they have brought this Claim in their personal capacities, then they ought to present the court with credible evidence establishing their lineal connection to the Estate. Mrs. Ruan argued that this is not the case and the claim ought to fail.
Next, Mrs. Ruan submitted that Viola, Collins and Audrey's claim is statute-barred in accordance with the Limitation Act, R.S.A. c.L60. Section 5(3) of the Act bars actions to recover land which are filed in excess of 12 years from the date in which the cause of action accrued. Learned counsel Mrs. Ruan submitted that the cause of action would have accrued to Viola, Collins and Audrey (if they...
To continue reading
Request your trial