Microsoft Word White V Mullings et al [2017] jmsc 111
Yüklə 0,51 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- If there was a representation, did the claimant alter her position to her detriment because of it [88]
locked up and she had no access to it. She however maintained in her defence that the property was family land. [85] The fact that the claimant stored items in a room in the house and that she or her
son occupied the said room, is, I find, in the context of family land, insufficiently clear, to amount to a representation. The 2 nd defendant, treated the property as
family land for the benefit of all family members. This suggests that no permanent interest was contemplated for the claimant to the exclusion of other
family members. [86] It is undisputed that at the commencement of the construction, the claimant
did not intend to own the building. It may be that at the point when she faced difficulties with contributing financially, this perceived view of ascertaining
some manner of interest in one of the rooms may have induced her to continue making contributions. It does seem however more likely, on her evidence, that it
was the knowledge that the 2 nd defendant was intending to give the property to
her son, the claimant’s brother that triggered this claim. She testified on cross- examination that when this started was when she (the 2 nd defendant) changed her mind and decided to put the land in her son’s name and she is the one who
build that house. [87] In the circumstances and on a careful consideration of the totality of the evidence
including the context in which the construction was undertaken, I find the 2 nd
defendant did not give the claimant an assurance which created an obvious
expectation of a legal interest in the house and/ or property. The three elements are interdependent and the construction and the expending of money was done
not in reliance on an assurance but out of love and affection between the parties, as the claimant agrees. Accordingly, the court has found that the first
element of proprietary estoppel, representation/assurance has not been established by the claimant on a balance of probabilities. If there was a representation, did the claimant alter her position to her detriment because of it? [88] In the event however, that I am wrong in finding that there was no assurance
given by the 2 nd defendant to the claimant, I will go on to consider the other
elements of the doctrine. Accepting for a moment that there was an assurance, did the claimant in reliance on this representation, alter her position by
expending her time and resources in constructing the house for the 2 nd
defendant? [89] It has been made clear that the construction of the house commenced because
the 2 nd defendant and her husband were in need of suitable living
accommodations and the claimant, who cared for her parents’ well being, wanted to improve their living conditions. This is accepted, but it is also recognised that
after a hurricane, “the time had come for a change”, and the claimant and at
least one sibling, Winston Mullings, were intending to provide a new home for
their parents. [90] The claimant stated that she expended $4,800,000.00 but that she had not kept
all of her receipts and documents. The receipts she has totals $3,247,315.07. She stated that the defendants lodged into her account the sums of $80,000.00
in August, 2006 and $85,000.00 in October, 2006, to assist with the construction of the house. She also agreed that a portion of the land was sold for
[91] She further accepts that the two sums of $80,000.00 and $85,000.00 came from
her brother Winston Mullings, who also sent her US$2,030.00, which was converted to JA$132,598.56 on August 12, 2006. She said that these are all
the monies which she received from her mother or siblings, totalling $577, 958.56. She received no materials from anyone to assist in the construction of
the house for her parents, except the steel, the bad blocks and marl. She also paid all the cost for labour, material, fixtures, fittings and the cost of preparation
of the plans and drawings for the construction of the house. Additionally, she strongly denied that she was doing any major work on her own house in Cardiff
Hall in 2005. [92] The 2 nd defendant has admitted that the claimant had to finance the building, outside of the money she received from the 2 nd defendant and her son, Winston. She however also stated that the claimant did not receive further cash from her
as she (the claimant) told her to “tell Winston to send the money to a Mr. Gordon.” The claimant had referred to a Mr. Keith Gordon, as one of the persons
to whom she sent money to pay bills for the construction of the house when she was in the USA. [93] The upshot is that construction of the house commenced in 2005 and in 2006,
several sums of money, were provided to the claimant to assist with its construction. There was no further substantive evidence given by the 2 nd
any of the other children. The sums of money however sent in 2006, after
construction had begun, gives a strong indication, that when the construction was initially discussed and undertaken, it was really an arrangement for the 2 nd
parents. [94] I accept that the claimant may very well have provided the largest portion of the
monies used in the construction of the home. However, in the circumstances, I find that the claimant’s position and/ or intention did not change. She had
intended to build a home for her parents and she proceeded to do so. Hence, it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered a disadvantage, based on the
2
defendant’s unconscionable failure to honour the assurance, on which the
claimant relied. [95] Regrettably, the claimant may no doubt, in light of the subsequent developments
feel “shafted” by the 2 nd defendant, but having regard to the state of events Yüklə 0,51 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|