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 » Charmaine Angela Ruth Francis Nee Theobalds V Bradley Everette Francis

    1
    SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 137 OF 1997
    BETWEEN:
    CHARMAINE ANGELA RUTH FRANCIS NEE THEOBALDS
    Petitioner
    and
    BRADLEY EVERETTE FRANCIS
    Respondent
    Appearances:
    Mr. Samuel Commissiong for the petitioner
    Mr. Arthur Williams for the respondent
    —————————————————–
    2001: November 16, 28; December 18
    ——————————————————
    JUDGMENT
    IN CHAMBERS
    ALLEYNE J.
    [1] This is an application for ancillary relief consequent upon the granting of a decree
    of divorce on the 26th June, 1997. It has been agreed by the parties and is
    ordered by consent as follows:
    1. That the respondent convey his half share interest in the matrimonial
    home at Queen’s Drive, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, to the
    petitioner in trust for the children of the marriage.
    2
    2. That the respondent service the mortgage loan on the property and keep
    the matrimonial home aforesaid in a good state of repair and condition,
    provided that if the petitioner remarries and continues to live in the
    matrimonial home, with her husband, she will thereupon assume
    responsibility for the payment of the mortgage and the maintenance of the
    matrimonial home.
    3. That should the petitioner cohabit with a man in the matrimonial home,
    she shall upon commencing to do so and thereafter undertake
    responsibility for the payment of the mortgage and the maintenance of the
    said home.
    4. That the respondent do forthwith transfer to the petitioner his entire legal
    and beneficial interest, free from all incumbrances, in the motor vehicle
    registration number P 916, and put the said motor vehicle in a good state
    of mechanical repair and condition.
    [2] The issues outstanding for decision by the court are the matter of maintenance for
    the three children of the marriage, and for the petitioner, and for a lump sum in
    favour of the petitioner. There is in place at the present time an order of the court
    whereby the respondent pays towards the maintenance of each of the children the
    monthly sum of $250.00, and for the petitioner, the monthly sum of $500.00.
    [3] The petitioner and the respondent were married on August 15, 1987, and
    appeared to have enjoyed a happy and harmonious relationship for the first five
    years approximately, but the second five years appear to have been characterised
    by a progressive deterioration in the relationship, culminating in the petitioner filing
    the divorce petition herein on April 17, 1997. There are three children of the
    marriage, Diego, age 14, Krystle, age 13, and Nicholas, age 10. The child Diego
    suffers from a bronchial asthmatic condition and requires regular medication. The
    other children are in normal health. They appear to be all normal, well adjusted
    3
    children, and appear to have normal and healthy relations with both parents
    despite the breakdown of the marriage.
    [4] The petitioner is a teacher and earns a net salary of about $1200.00 per month,
    while the respondent is a Civil Engineer, a principal in an engineering and
    construction company owned by members of his family, including himself, which
    undertakes major engineering and construction contracts for the government and
    other clients.
    [5] As part of the benefits of his employment, from which he claims to earn a monthly
    salary of $3500.00, the respondent also occupies a dwelling house which belongs
    to the company, and has the use of company vehicles.
    [6] Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes reference to a series of cancelled
    cheques entered in evidence, and contends that these cheques must be
    presumed to represent personal expenditure of the respondent. I do not agree.
    An examination of the cheques, and in particular of the names of the payees,
    reveals very clearly that the amounts were paid to business associates of the
    company, for business related expenses of the company, and cannot be
    accounted as expenditure of the respondent in his personal capacity or from
    personal funds.
    [7] The respondent admits to having a fund at the Building And Loan Association,
    standing at the sum of $20,000.00. He has implied that this fund is intended for
    the future educational needs of the children, and I order that this fund, and any
    future accretions thereto, be held in trust by the respondent for the children, to
    meet their future educational needs, and that the respondent be restrained from
    withdrawing from the principal or interest of the said fund without the prior
    agreement of the petitioner or the approval of the court, and for the benefit and
    education of the children or any one or more of them.
    4
    [8] Counsel for the petitioner also urged that the court rule that the sum of
    $200,000.00 evidenced by exhibit BF1, held at the Caribbean Banking
    Corporation, is an asset of the respondent, and should be taken into account in
    considering this application. On the other hand, the respondent claims that this
    money belongs to his mother, and has been used as security for advances to the
    family business, with the approval of his mother.
    [9] Notwithstanding that the fund was held by the bank in the names of Bradley
    Francis, the respondent, Noreen Francis, his mother, and Charmaine Francis, the
    petitioner, who apparently was not aware of the existence of this fund, the
    respondent disclaims any beneficial interest in that fund in himself or the petitioner.
    However, in his affidavit filed on June 15, 2000, the respondent says,
    “My mother Noreen Francis, the Petitioner and I had a fixed deposit at the
    Caribbean Banking Corporation Limited, this money has since been
    withdrawn.”
    The respondent does not in that affidavit aver that the money is beneficially owned
    by anyone other than the named depository.
    [10] It is clear that the petitioner has had no benefit from this fund, and no accounting
    has been made to her in respect thereof. I hold that the petitioner is beneficially
    entitled to a one third interest in the said sum, and direct that the respondent pay
    to the petitioner in respect thereof the sum of $66,666.66 with interest thereon
    from the date of the deposit, viz.. July 3, 1997, at the rate of 5% per annum until
    payment.
    [11] As regards the land acquired by the respondent at Diamond, I hold that the
    respondent is entitled to hold this land free of any claim on the part of the
    petitioner, he having agreed to convey to the petitioner all of his interest in the
    matrimonial home and expressing the intention to build his own home on that land.
    5
    [12] The evidence discloses and it is agreed by both parties that the respondent
    provides separately for the mid-day meals of the children, and also to some extent
    contributes to their weekend meals. This, in my view, would greatly reduce the
    financial burden on the petitioner. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner contends
    that she is unable to meet the needs of the children from her present earnings and
    the provision presently made by the respondent. In this regard, the petitioner
    draws attention to the extra curricular activities and aspirations of the children.
    [13] On the evidence before me, and having given full consideration to the matters
    drawn to my attention by Counsel, in which regard I am particularly grateful to
    learned Counsel for the petitioner for his comprehensive written submissions, I
    confirm the interim order that the respondent pay for the benefit of the petitioner
    the monthly sum of $500.00.
    [14] Paying due regard to the several considerations set forth in section 34(2) of the
    Matrimonial Causes Act Cap. 176, I order that the provision made by the
    respondent in respect of the children of the family be increased to $300.00 per
    month in respect of each child.
    [15] Counsel for the petitioner urges the court to find against the respondent’s claim
    that he is the beneficial owner of no more than 5 shares in the family company
    Franco Construction Limited. There is no evidential basis on which I can so
    hold. However, it is clear to me that, even if the respondent’s circumstances are at
    present somewhat straitened as he claims, his longer term financial and economic
    prospects are far better than those of the petitioner. At the present time, and on
    the state of the evidence before me, I cannot reasonably make better provision
    than I have made for the petitioner and the children. However, in view of the
    respondent’s future prospects, including the future maturing of term insurance
    policies and the potential for growth in the benefits which he may realise from the
    family business, I grant the petitioner liberty to apply at any time in the future for
    provision for a lump sum, secured provision, and additional maintenance for
    6
    herself and the children, should the circumstances of the respondent be
    significantly altered to his advantage.
    [16] The petitioner to have her costs of these proceedings.
    Brian G.K. Alleyne
    High Court Judge

    /charmaine-angela-ruth-francis-nee-theobalds-v-bradley-everette-francis/
     Prev
    Sylvanus Leslie v Ryan Ollivierre
    Next 
    YVONNE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS v KENNETH SYLVESTER WILLIAMS
    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