Webster et Al v Webster

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 26 June 1997
• Neutral Citation: AI 1997 HC 4
• Docket Number: 9 of 1997
• Date: 26 June 1997

High Court

Saunders, J.

9 of 1997

Webster et al

and

Webster

Appearances:

Mr. P. Patterson for the Applicant/Defendant.

Ms. Y. Wallace for the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

Practice and procedure - Application by defendant to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim — Application made pursuant to Order 18, Rule 19 of the RSC — Court found that the plaintiff's claim that they were entitled to be indemnified by the defendant was good — Application dismissed.

Saunders, J.

1 This is an application by the Defendant to strike out the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim. The application is made pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. No affidavit is filed in support thereof. It follows that the task of this court is merely to examine the Statement of Claim and to make its determination on the basis of what is disclosed thereon.

2 The Statement of Claim alleges that the Plaintiffs are joint owners of lands at East End. In 1988 they charged the lands to the Caribbean Commercial Bank. The charge was given as security at the Defendant's request for a loan of US$40,000.00 made to the Defendant by the bank. The latter failed to repay the bank. The Plaintiffs, fearing for their security, orally requested the Defendant to repay the loan or to himself put up alternative security and so exonerate the Plaintiffs from their liability. This was to no avail. In January 1995 the bank advised the Plaintiffs that it intended to take steps to enforce its security. In an effort to avoid the sale of their property, the Plaintiffs agreed with the bank to assume the loan and accrued interest. They now sue the Defendant claiming a declaration that they are entitled to be discharged or indemnified by the Defendant.

3 Counsel for the Defendant argues that the Statement of Claim merely asserts that the Plaintiffs have assumed a responsibility but there is no indication that any money has actually been paid to the bank by them. He also alleges that the Claim does not disclose that the Defendant's indebtedness to the bank has been extinguished. In these circumstances, Counsel states, an action for money paid to the Defendant's use was unmaintainable. The case of MAXWELL v. JAMESON 2 B. & ALD. 51 was relied on.

4 That case was a common law action of assumpsit for money paid. The Plaintiff in that case and three others (including the Defendant) had given a promissory note to a creditor. The Plaintiff subsequently took up the note in question giving his own...