Lalgie v Maitland

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Michel, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 August 2009
• Neutral Citation: GD 2009 HC 16
• Docket Number: GDAHCV 608 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Date: 28 August 2009

High Court

Michel, J. (Ag.)

GDAHCV 608 of 1999

Lalgie

and

Maitland

Appearances:

Ms. Rosalyn Wilkinson for the claimant.

Ms. Daniella Williams-Mitchell for the applicant, Errol Maitland, and for two other beneficiaries, Evita Maitland and Earl Maitland.

Ms. Pauline Hannibal for the minor children, Karol Maitland, Kieron Maitland, Charlton Maitland and Nas St. Louis-Maitland.

Mr. Alban John for Angelina Chandler.

Ms. Kim George for Kristal Maitland.

Mr. Raymond Anthony for Champ Maitland.

Family law - Common law relationships — Application for half share — Consent order by which defendant was to transfer his interest in two lots to claimant and pay her $30,000 — Defendant died before complying with the Consent Order — Whether Consent Order final judgment.

1 Michel, J. (AG.): By Writ of Summons with Statement of Claim endorsed dated 31st December 1999 the claimant, Doreen Lalgie, then referred to as the plaintiff, claimed against the defendant, Errol Maitland, the following:

• 1. A declaration that she is entitled to a half share or such other proportion as this Honourable Court shall deem just in all the real and personal properties, inclusive of cash and business ventures owned, controlled and operated by the defendant and hereinafter specifically identified and pleaded, or as may be found to be owned, controlled and operated by the defendant, the plaintiff having worked side by side with the defendant as his common-law wife from since in or about the year 1977 when the defendant had none of the said properties until the break-up of the relationship in or about January 1999 during which time the said properties were acquired through the joint effort and industry of the parties hereto.

• 2. An Order that the defendant do transfer or cause to be transferred to the plaintiff one half of the aforesaid properties or such proportion as the court shall deem just or that a valuation be obtained of all real property and business ventures acquired during the relevant period by the parties and now held in the defendant's sole name and that the defendant be ordered to sell same or as may be required and to pay to the plaintiff a one half share of such value as may be found or such proportion as the court shall deem just.

• 3. An Injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servant or agents or howsoever named from charging, further charging, transferring, leasing, assigning or in any manner encumbering or dealing with the said properties, businesses or assets inclusive of cash in any manner prejudicial to the plaintiff's claim herein.

• 4. An Order that the defendant give account for all properties and business acquired in his name during the relationship with the plaintiff, inclusive of all monies and profits earned by the aforesaid business.

• 5. That the defendant be ordered to compensate the plaintiff in such monetary sum as the court shall deem just, in all the circumstances, for her years of service to the defendant as the manageress of his various business ventures she having so managed the said businesses without compensation.

• 6. Interest pursuant to Section 17 of the West Indies Supreme Court Act at such rate and for such period as the court deems just.

• 7. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court shall deem just.

• 8. Costs.

2 The defendant entered an Appearance on 24th February 2000 and filed a Defence on 26th June 2000 in which he denied that the claimant was entitled to the relief claimed.

3 The claimant filed a Reply to the Defence on 19th September 2000 joining issue with the defendant on his Defence.

4 The claimant had in the meantime filed an application on 3rd February 2000 (with an affidavit in support dated 5th January 2000) seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from encumbering or dealing with the properties, businesses or assets itemized in the Statement of Claim in any manner prejudicial to the claimant. The defendant filed an affidavit in reply on 6th April 2000. After several adjournments of the application, on 19th May 2000 an undertaking was given on behalf of the defendant not to dispose of or further encumber the properties in question until the trial of the matter or until further order and it was agreed between the parties that the matter would be set down for speedy trial.

5 Witness statements were filed by and on behalf of the claimant between January and February 2003 and by the defendant in March 2003. A List of Documents was filed on behalf of the claimant on 24th February 2003 and on behalf of the defendant on 21st March 2003. A Trial Bundle was filed on 26th March 2003.

6 On 8th October 2003 a Consent Order dated 31st March 2003 was entered in the matter. The Consent Order stated –

“BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment be entered herein for the claimant as follows:

• 1. The defendant do transfer all his share and interest in the flatter of two lots...