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.]
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
  • 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 & Administration of Estates Rules
    • 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
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
  • 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 » Irvin Moses v Lynne Moses

    Irvin Moses v Lynne Moses

    1
    EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
    TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
    BVIHMT 2011/0030
    BETWEEN:
    IRVIN MOSES
    Petitioner
    V
    LYNNE ELIZABETH MOSES
    Respondent
    Appearances:
    Mr. Patrick Thompson of McW Todman & Co. for Petitioner
    Ms. Tamara Cameron of Farara Kerins for Respondent


    2012: September 26th
    2012: October 15th


    JUDGMENT
    [1] Ellis J: By Petition filed on 20th May 2011, the Petitioner petitioned this Court for a decree absolute
    dissolving his marriage to the Respondent on ground that the marriage has broken down
    irretrievably because the Respondent has behaved in such a way that he cannot reasonably be
    expected to live with her.
    [2] The particulars pleaded in the Petition are set out follows:
    i. “The Respondent has been mentally and verbally abusive to the Petitioner
    throughout the course of the marriage.
    ii. The Respondent has no interest in participating in sexual activity with the
    Petitioner.
    iii. The Respondent has a negative impact on the children of the marriage due
    to the Respondent’s ill-tempered nature and tendency to destroy items in the
    course of our arguments.
    iv. Both parties have frequent arguments and disagreements and the
    Respondent is argumentative and unreasonable.
    v. The total effect of the Respondent’s behaviour during the marriage is the
    Petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the Respondent.”
    2
    [3] In her Amended Answer filed on 24th August 2011, the Respondent denies the Petitioner’s
    allegations including the particulars of unreasonable behaviour pleaded. She states rather that;
    “The Respondent would prefer that the parties make attempts to continue the marriage
    but does not oppose the grant of divorce as it is clear that the Petitioner no longer
    wants to be married to her. In any event the Respondent does not agree to a divorce
    on the basis of her behaviour.”
    [4] When the matter came up for directions before Olivetti J on 5th December 2011, the Parties were
    ordered to attend counselling. The Petitioner attended 2 out of the 3 prescribed counselling
    sessions. The Parties did not reconcile.
    [5] On the next occasion when the matter came up for hearing the Respondent indicated that she
    believed that the marriage can be salvaged and that she would oppose the Petition. The matter
    was set down for trial on 26th September 2012.
    THE LAW
    [6] It is clear that under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, a Court cannot hold the
    marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless it is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that
    the Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to
    live with the Respondent.
    [7] The appropriate test to determine whether the Petitioner has established this fact is as adumbrated
    in the case of Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone-Stallard [1974] 3 W.L.R. 302 which has since
    been followed and applied in O’Neill v O’Neill [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1118, Thurlow v Thurlow [1976] 3
    W.L.R. 161 and Bergin v Bergin [1983] 1 W.L.R. 279.
    [8] The Court notes that the Court in Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone-Stallard expressly did not
    follow the dicta in Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 2 W.L.R. 353 which was cited and relied on by
    Counsel for the Respondent in her submissions. Indeed, Pheasant v Pheasant has not been
    recently followed or applied.
    [9] In Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone-Stallard, the petitioner filed for divorce relying on the
    ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down within section 1 (2) (b) of the English
    Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The Court found as a fact that although there had been major
    incidents, the Petitioner had been subjected to a constant atmosphere of criticism, disapproval and
    boorish behaviour by the Respondent. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to a decree
    nisi.
    [10] In considering the appropriate direction, Dunn J stated the test as follows:
    3
    “Would any right-thinking person come to the conclusion that this husband has
    behaved in such a way that this wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with
    him taking into account the whole of the circumstances and the characters and the
    personalities of the parties.”
    [11] The Court accepts that this correctly states the test to be applied. The words “reasonably be
    expected” prima facie suggest an objective test. Nevertheless, in considering what is reasonable,
    the Court will have regard to the history of the marriage and to the individual spouses before it. The
    Court must therefore consider this petitioner and this respondent in assessing what is reasonable.
    Having regard to all the circumstances of this case it must consider whether this particular
    Petitioner can or cannot be expected to live with this particular Respondent.
    [12] The English Court of Appeal in O’Neill v O’Neill affirmed this approach and also stressed that no
    other extraneous concepts should be imported into the test, such as that the behaviour should be
    ‘grave and weighty’. The appropriate approach, therefore, is primarily concerned with assessing
    any conduct which is not utterly trivial and in looking at that conduct objectively, in the light of its
    effects on this Petitioner.
    [13] The Court accepts that it is unrealistic to take each individual act in isolation; rather the whole
    context involved and their knowledge of each other, cause and effect must be examined bearing in
    mind the personalities of the parties.
    THE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
    [14] The Petitioner’s evidence is that his marriage has deteriorated over time. In his witness statement
    he stated that as the marriage has progressed he noted that whenever he argued with the
    Respondent she would seek to belittle him. He attributes this to the fact she is a qualified
    accountant and therefore earns significantly more than he does. He indicated that the Respondent
    constantly reminded him of this fact and that she insisted on maintaining separate bank accounts.
    In addition she was quick to remind him of what property belonged to her. He stated that this
    demeaning and belittling attitude continued throughout the marriage.
    [15] Under cross examination, the Petitioner stated that because of the disparity in their earning
    capacities, his wife pays for practically everything in the household. He stated that when he makes
    any suggestion for purchases, she would respond dismissively indicating that he would have to pay
    for it himself. Ultimately, all major financial decisions were taken by the Respondent because she
    controlled the purse strings. He stated that as a result, he was made to feel like a “nobody” in the
    front of his children. He admitted that many of their arguments arose out of what he terms the
    “money issue”.
    4
    [16] Although the Respondent denies that she was at any time mentally and verbally abusive to the
    Petitioner, her evidence on this matter did not directly contradict the specific evidence of the
    Petitioner. Rather it was during the cross examination of the Petitioner that the Respondent’s
    counsel sought to suggest that it was the Petitioner’s difficulty in keeping within the agreed budget
    which was the source of contention between the Parties.
    [17] The Petitioner also gave evidence that earlier in the marriage he has suggested that they attend
    marital counselling. He testified that his suggestion was abruptly rebuffed by the Respondent who
    refused to attend the sessions suggesting that it was Petitioner (and not her) who had the problem.
    This evidence was also not contradicted by the Respondent in her evidence.
    [18] The Petitioner also claims that following the birth of their first child, the Respondent began to
    display less and less interest in their physical relationship. He claims that this situation worsened
    after the birth of their second child. In his witness statement he indicates that they would go for
    long periods from 1 month to 6 weeks without physical relations and without any plausible
    explanation or excuse from the Respondent.
    [19] Under cross examination the Petitioner freely admitted that this has been a constant complaint
    throughout his marriage. Although he conceded that there were times when his wife would initiate
    intimate relations he stated that these were seldom. He testified that he considered it intolerable to
    have to make an appointment when he wanted to be intimate with his wife. The Petitioner
    concedes that he has regularly brought up his dissatisfaction with their physical relationship and
    that it has often led to arguments.
    [20] The Respondent denies that she has no interest in a physical relationship with the Petitioner. In
    support of this she stated that in or about July/August 2010 while on a family trip she had
    consensual relations with the Petitioner on more than one occasion with at least two incidents
    being initiated by her. She describes their sex life prior to the filing of the Petition as active. She
    further indicated that since the filing of the Petition, they have had sexual encounters once, on 23rd
    October 2011 and again 9th March 2012.
    [21] Under cross examination, the Respondent has testified that on several occasions she has yielded
    to the sexual demands of the Petitioner when she did not want to. She indicated that at times she
    felt sexually degraded and ill-treated by the Petitioner. It also clearly concerns her that the
    Petitioner constantly criticised her for what she termed “her inadequacies” in the presence of the
    children.
    [22] Both the Petitioner and the Respondent admit that these differences led to many arguments
    between them. The Respondent however testified that she is a peaceful and tolerant person and
    that these arguments were usually instigated by the Petitioner. During cross examination, the
    Respondent admitted that there were times that she became so upset that she would throw and
    5
    destroy household items. Her evidence is that the first of these incidents took place in 2009 and
    that her reaction was provoked by the Petitioner who would deliberately say hurtful things to her.
    [23] The Respondent also freely admitted that following one such disagreement, she threw out the
    Petitioner’s clothing from the matrimonial home. When questioned by the Petitioner’s attorney, the
    Respondent conceded that when she did this she fully expected that he would leave the home.
    [24] The Petitioner stated that he did in fact leave the home within 2 – 3 months of presenting the
    Petition and has never recommenced residence. He indicated that since then, he has resided with
    his mother and his brother and also with a woman with whom he admits to having an intimate
    relationship.
    ANALYSIS
    [25] The Respondent stated in her witness statement that the real reason that the Petitioner wants a
    divorce is to pursue an adulterous relationship. The Petitioner has admitted that he is currently
    involved in an extra marital relationship; however he indicates that this is not the reason why he
    wants a divorce. He asserts that their relationship has worsened over time and that he is tired of
    the years of arguments, the constant accusations, criticisms and denigration.
    [26] In direct contrast, the Respondent indicated that there has been no significant deterioration in the
    relationship over the course of the marriage. In her words, the marriage was “constantly on the
    same page”. She described the difficulties experienced in the marriage as being part of the normal
    vicissitudes of married life and not sufficient to warrant the dissolution of the marriage.
    [27] The Court finds it impossible to accept this contention. The Court does not condone the Petitioner’s
    pursuit of an extra-marital affair and there is no doubt that in so doing he is partly to blame for the
    breakdown of the marriage. However, the Respondent has not filed a cross prayer on the basis of
    the Petitioner’s behaviour and on the authority of Birch v Birch [1977] 7 Fam. Law 172 the Court
    cannot refuse the Petition on the basis of the Petitioner’s behaviour alone.
    [28] In any event having reviewed the unchallenged evidence in this case and the admissions made by
    the Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner has behaved in such a way that the husband
    cannot reasonably be expected to continue to live with her. The Parties’ emotional and physical
    relationship has deteriorated and that the Parties marriage has irretrievably broken down.
    [29] Both parties confirmed that there have been several arguments about a number of issues
    pertaining to the marriage. Some of these arguments appear to have taken place in the presence
    of the children of the marriage. The Respondent has admitted to somewhat intense altercations
    with the Petitioner. Although the Petition did not disclose this, the Court accepts the Petitioner’s
    6
    oral evidence that on occasion, the Parties disagreements have turned physical albeit with minor
    “pushing and tugging”.
    [30] The Respondent admits to throwing and destroying items during arguments. She also admits that
    she threw the Petitioner’s belongings out of the matrimonial home and that when she did so she
    expected him to leave.
    [31] The Petitioner’s evidence that he felt humiliated and belittled by the Respondent was not traversed
    during the trial. The Petitioner indicated that the Respondent’s cumulative behaviour has impacted
    him negatively. He gave evidence that he has been constantly criticised and moreover that the
    Respondent has indicated that she is sick and tired of him and has on occasion asked him to
    leave. The Petitioner has reacted to this by leaving the matrimonial home.
    [32] There is no doubt from the evidence of both Parties that there has been significant discordancy in
    their physical relationship and while this alone would not have been sufficient to ground this petition
    it is apparent that it has not assisted. Despite the fact that they have had at least two sexual
    encounters since the filing of the Petition, all attempts at reconciliation have proven fruitless, no
    doubt because the Petitioner finds it intolerable to continue with the marriage. The Parties have
    lived apart for over 1 year and they acknowledge that recently their only real communication
    appears to be in connection with their children.
    [33] Applying the test to the facts of this case, the Court finds that a decree nisi of divorce should be
    granted to the Petitioner.
    [34] It is therefore ordered as follows:
    i. The said marriage be dissolved unless sufficient cause be shown to the Court
    within 2 months from the making of this decree why such decree should not be
    made absolute.
    ii. Ancillary matters are adjourned to Chambers to a date to be fixed by the Court
    Administrator on application by either party.
    iii. No order as to costs.
    …………………………………………
    Vicki Ann Ellis
    * High Court Judge

    /irvin-moses-v-lynne-moses/
     Prev
    Andrew Fahie v National Bank of the Virgin Islands
    Next 
    Gulf Insurance Ltd. v Creque’s Insurance Ltd.
    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
    © 2021 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