Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
    • Transcript Requests
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Court of Appeal Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • JEI Programme
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » ANELTA SHALLOW v HILARY DELPESCHE

    1
    SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 59 OF 1998
    BETWEEN:
    ANELTA SHALLOW
    Plaintiff
    and
    HILARY DELPESCHE
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Mr. Emery Robertson for the plaintiff
    Miss Zingha Horne for the defendant
    ——————————————–
    2001:October 22, 23, 29
    :
    ——————————————–
    JUDGMENT
    ALLEYNE J.
    [1] The plaintiff Anelta Shallow claims a declaration that the defendant is not entitled
    to a share in a portion of land on which a residential house is constructed, in the
    village of Camden Park; a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a greater share
    in the said dwelling house than is the defendant; an order that the plaintiff be
    enabled to purchase the defendant’s share in the said house; an order for
    possession of the house; and for accounts. The plaintiff also claimed an order for
    costs. However, at the close of the case Counsel for the plaintiff indicated that he
    is not seeking costs against the defendant.
    2
    [2] The defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that he is entitled legally and
    beneficially to the said land and house, and for costs.
    [3] The plaintiff and her daughter gave evidence in support of the claim, while the
    defendant, his daughter Vanda John, his neighbour Louvina Acosta, and Glenroy
    Boucher and Lawrence Gurley, masons, testified in support of the defendant’s
    case.
    [4] I start by saying that I was not at all impressed by the witness Vanda John, whose
    evidence I found not to be generally credible. She was hesitant on some critical
    issues, appeared to have been coached, but in areas where the coaching was
    deficient she was very uncertain, and in other areas her evidence was clearly
    embellished.
    [5] Louvina Acosta was of little help, and neither Boucher nor Gurley added much to
    the case. Indeed I might say of all the witnesses in the case, including the plaintiff
    and the defendant, that they were less than impressive witnesses.
    [6] The facts as I find them is that the plaintiff, a long standing resident of Camden
    Park, had a special relationship with Mr. Jeremiah Scott, at the time Parliamentary
    representative for that area and a Minister of government. The defendant, in
    1991/1992, appears to have been in very difficult and unfortunate circumstances,
    and was living in a derelict government building. At that time the plaintiff and the
    defendant, a divorcee, struck up a romantic relationship.
    [7] On the advice of Scott, the parties squatted on a portion of government land and
    by letter dated August 2, 1991, they were offered the opportunity to purchase the
    land. They took no action and by letter dated November 29, 1994, they were
    given a further twenty-eight days within which to arrange a purchase of the land.
    Again they took no action, although by that time they had long built a dwelling
    house on the land and were living in that house. I believe that they both
    contributed, to the extent of their respective abilities, both financially and in terms
    3
    of what is called ‘sweat equity”, to the construction of the dwelling house in
    contemplation of establishing a permanent relationship and making the house their
    home.
    [8] Towards the end of 1996 the plaintiff negotiated a bank loan for the purpose of
    purchasing the land and for other purposes. She utilised a part of the funds so
    obtained to purchase the land in her own name. The loan was guaranteed by her
    daughter, who contributes equally with her to the servicing of the loan.
    [9] Much, if not most, of the materials for the construction of the house was donated
    free of charge by the government through the intervention of Mr. Scott. I am of the
    view that whether the document authorising delivery of materials was made in
    favour of the plaintiff or the defendant, the intention was to benefit both parties
    who were, as far as Mr. Scott was concerned, a family unit.
    [10] I also believe that both parties, in making whatever contribution they made to the
    construction of the house, did so in contemplation of living in the house as a family
    unit, and for the equal benefit of both.
    [11] In 1996 unhappy differences arose, or perhaps came to a head, between the
    parties, as a result of which the plaintiff left the house, taking with her a television
    set, a bed, and other items which belonged to her. It was in that same year that
    she borrowed $25,000.00 from CIBC, which loan was secured by her daughter,
    who is paying back half the loan, the other half being serviced by the plaintiff. That
    loan was secured on October 31, 1996, and on November 6, 1996, she paid the
    purchase price for the land on which the house stands, in full. She obtained a
    Crown Grant in respect of that transaction, dated November 28, 1996, and
    recorded as deed No. 79/96.
    [12] Neither the defendant nor the plaintiff had followed through, for some five years,
    on the offer for the sale of the land, and the government was free to dispose of the
    land to any purchaser. There is no ground pleaded or proved on which this
    4
    transaction can be set aside, and the legal estate is clearly and unequivocally
    vested in the plaintiff.
    [13] I do not accept that the rest of the money borrowed was utilised to complete the
    house on the land, as the plaintiff claimed. Indeed by that time she had ceased
    living in the house. I believe that that money was used to extend and improve the
    house in which she now lives with her children.
    [14] Learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that on the facts a resulting trust
    arises in favour of the defendant in respect of both the land and the house.
    Counsel cited the case of Cupid v Thomas [1985] 36 WIR 182.
    [15] Counsel for the plaintiff, for his part, referred the court to the cases of Gissing v
    Gissing [1970] 2 All ER 780 and Pettitt v Pettitt [1969] 2 All ER 385.
    [16] On the evidence I can find no ground for inferring a resulting trust in respect of the
    land. However, the defendant has made a contribution to the construction of the
    house, by cash and labour, with the intention, shared by the plaintiff, that they
    would both benefit, I believe equally, from the house. I hold that both the plaintiff
    and the defendant are entitled to share equally in the value of the house.
    [17] I am not satisfied with the evidence of either party on the matter of the value of the
    house.
    [18] The plaintiff’s application for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to a
    share in the land is granted.
    [19] As regards the house, it is declared that the plaintiff and the defendant are equally
    entitled to benefit from the value of the house. It is ordered that the house be
    valued by a person agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant, or failing agreement
    a person appointed by the court upon application by either party, and that the
    5
    defendant be paid 50% of the value of the house. The defendant is to vacate the
    said house within two months of being paid the sum so determined.
    [20] The counterclaim is dismissed.
    [21] Each party is to bear his/her own costs of this action.
    Brian G.K. Alleyne
    High Court Judge

    /anelta-shallow-v-hilary-delpesche/
     Prev
    P. DAPHNE BELMAR NEE DOPWELL v OWEN C. BELMAR
    Next 
    Winston Joseph Benedict Charles Glenroy Sean Victor v Queen
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2022 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more