Andrew Johnson v Shirlene Herbert

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1113-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0400

Between:

Andrew Johnson

Claimant

and

Shirlene Herbert

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J1113-1

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Mr. Andre Thomas for the Claimant

Ms. Sherrine Francis-Hackett for the Defendant

Actie, J.

1 This case raises the issue of whether the claimant holds a beneficial interest in property situate at Calivigny, St. George, which is registered in the name of the defendant.

Background Facts

2 The claimant and the defendant were in a romantic relationship for approximately ten years, commencing in 1997. On 31 ^st July 1998, the defendant purchased land in Calivigny for the sum of $42,000.00 in her sole name, which was financed by a mortgage in the amount of $41,800.00 from Barclays Bank PLC.

3 It is the claimant's evidence that he contributed $20,000.00(USD) to clear the mortgage for the purchase of the land to satisfy a condition to secure a further mortgage for the construction of a dwelling house.

4 On 29 ^th April 2002, both parties executed a deed of further charge over the land in the sum of $258,200.00 for the construction of the dwelling house on the said land. The claimant, who was resident in the USA, said that he made numerous trips to Grenada during the relationship and construction of the house.

5 It is the claimant's evidence that he purchased fixtures, appliances and furnishings for the dwelling house. The claimant states that he made payments towards the further charge by way of cheques drawn on his Citibank account in the United States. The claimant asserts that he signed cheques which he left in the custody of the defendant for her use towards household and loan expenses, while he resided abroad. The following cheque payments from the claimant to the defendant are in evidence:

(1) $3,000.00 USD on 30 ^th March 2005;

(2) $1,500.00 USD on 19 ^th August 2005;

(3) $1,500.00 USD on 30 ^th September 2005;

(4) $1,000.00 USD on 23 ^rd December 2005;

(5) $1,000.00 USD on 14 ^th February 2006;

(6) $500.00 USD on 12 ^th June 2007;

(7) $200.00 USD on 5 ^th May 2009;

(8) $200.00 USD on 29 ^th May 2009; and

(9) $1,000.00 USD on 25 ^th June 2009.

6 The claimant asserts that both parties made payments toward the further charge. The claimant avers that there was a common intention and understanding between the parties that he would have a beneficial interest in the property, and that all payments and purchases he made in relation to the property were made on that understanding. He further states that the parties agreed that he would be added to the title of the property.

7 The defendant admits that she was in an intimate relationship with the claimant between 1996 and 2009 but denies that he made any monetary contributions towards the property. The defendant asserts that she solely bore the cost of procuring building materials for the property and all payment obligations arising under the deed of further charge. The defendant acknowledges that the claimant purchased certain fixtures which she contends were given to her as gifts.

8 The defendant further contends that the claimant migrated permanently to the United States, and that there was no common intention or understanding that he should have a beneficial interest in the property.

Legal Analysis

Whether the claimant is entitled to an equitable interest in the property

9 By claim form filed on 10 ^th August 2023, the claimant claims a beneficial interest and compensation under the constructive trust principle. Counsel for the claimant argues that there was a common intention between the parties, having regard to their long-term intimate relationship spanning over ten years.

10 In Grant v Edwards 1 it was held that a constructive trust is established where there is a common intention that both parties should have a beneficial interest in property, and where the claimant has acted to their detriment in reliance on that intention and in the belief that such actions would confer a beneficial interest. A constructive trust may therefore arise where the legal owner has induced the claimant to believe that they would be entitled to a share in the ownership, either by: an (i) express agreement or (ii) contribution to the acquisition of the property 2.

11 In Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset 3, the House of Lords held that the fundamental question in such disputes is whether there was, on the basis of express discussions or conduct, any agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between the parties that the property was to be shared beneficially, coupled with detrimental action or alteration of position by the claimant. In the absence of such evidence, a constructive trust may be inferred from direct contributions to the purchase price by the person claiming the beneficial interest.

12 Counsel for the claimant relies on the decision of Webster JA in Paul Webster v Lois Dunbar 4 where he stated at paragraph 21:

“Common intention can be established in one of two ways. Firstly, by direct evidence of an agreement between the parties that the person without the legal title will have a beneficial interest in the property. Secondly, where there is no express agreement but the parties have conducted themselves in such a way as to show that they intend joint ownership the court will draw the inference of a common intention that they should both have a beneficial interest in the property. In both cases the claimant must go on to prove that he or she acted to his or her detriment on the basis of the express or inferred common intention that in so acting he or she would acquire a beneficial interest.”

13 Counsel submits that the claimant relied to his detriment on the common intention by executing the deed of further charge and assuming financial responsibility for repayment of the sums secured.

14 At trial, the defendant accepted that the claimant paid a lump sum towards the clearing off the original mortgage to secure the further charge for the construction of the dwelling house.

15 At trial, the defendant was somewhat evasive during cross examination about the long-term intention of the parties. The defendant said that she was able to secure the further charge without assistance but only joined the claimant because they were in a committed relationship.

16 The defendant contends that the claimant's contributions were gifts but admitted that the claimant would have a share and interest in the property “up to what he provided”.

17 In Stack v Dowden 5, Lord Walker observed that:

“The law has indeed moved on in response to changing social and economic conditions. The search is to ascertain the parties' shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with...