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 » YVONNE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS v KENNETH SYLVESTER WILLIAMS

    1
    SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 123 OF 1992
    BETWEEN:
    YVONNE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
    Petitioner
    and
    KENNETH SYLVESTER WILLIAMS
    Respondent
    Appearances:
    Mr. Williams for petitioner.
    Mrs. Kay Bacchus-Browne for respondent.
    ——————————————–
    2001: November ; December 18
    ——————————————–
    IN CHAMBERS
    JUDGMENT
    ALLEYNE J.
    [1] This is an application for ancillary relief by the respondent, the husband, in which
    he seeks financial relief and property adjustment in respect of the petitioner/wife’s
    property, as indicated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit filed March 3, 1993.
    [2] The respondent alleges that after the marriage, and between 1975 and 1983,
    while he worked as a seaman on various ships, he sent much of his salary,
    totalling $51,800.00 United States currency, home for his wife to invest and to
    build the matrimonial home. On his return home he claims to have found that his
    wife had converted most of the money to her own use and had built a house and
    registered it in her own name.
    2
    [3] The respondent alleges that the petitioner, through her lawyer, agreed to transfer
    the title to the matrimonial home to him on condition that he pay off the mortgage
    balance, then standing at the sum of $2000.00. He was impecunious, and unable
    to raise that sum, and he says that as a result the title remained in the petitioner’s
    name.
    [4] The respondent further alleges that the petitioner used his money to acquire a
    number of additional real and personal assets, to a value of $113,000.00.
    [5] The respondent further alleges that the petitioner is employed in the public service
    of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, at a monthly salary of $1000.00, while he earns
    $600.00 monthly from unspecified sources, owns only a boat which is in need of
    repair, and owes a total of $13,400.00 to various named creditors. His monthly
    living expenses including loan repayments total $1995.00. He is seeking an order
    for an accounting, a transfer of the matrimonial home to his name, and repayment
    of the money received by the petitioner from him, which he claims she converted
    to her own use.
    [6] In her affidavit filed on April 1, 1993, the petitioner sets out in some detail the
    money which she acknowledges the respondent sent her, and the disposition
    thereof, including the establishment of a joint account on which both parties drew,
    and the passbook for which she claims the respondent has, the taking of various
    loans, and the purchase from those resources by the respondent and for his
    benefit of a van which he subsequently sold, without her knowledge or approval,
    and without accounting to her. She alleges that various loan service payments
    and other expenses, including expenses incurred on and in respect of the van,
    were paid by her out of her earnings.
    [7] She alleges that the land on which the matrimonial house was built, which has for
    many years been exclusively occupied by the respondent since the separation in
    1982, was acquired by her before the marriage, which is why the title was
    subsequently registered in her name.
    3
    [8] The petitioner alleges that she received back pay, in an unspecified amount and
    on an unspecified date, all of which, she alleges, went towards payment of the
    loan account.
    [9] In a further affidavit, headed AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF MEANS, filed on March 1,
    1994, the petitioner provides details of the breakdown of the relationship, and
    further details of her version of the financial transactions. In this affidavit she
    alleges that virtually all the respondent’s earnings went to his parents, and some
    towards his brothers’ education, and that she advanced various amounts to him to
    meet his needs. She reaffirms that the matrimonial home was built on land which
    she had bought before the marriage, with funds which she earned or borrowed,
    amounting to some $18,000.00, supplemented by $12,000.00 from their joint
    account.
    [10] The petitioner, who claims to have invested considerable sums into the house, as
    well as sums in excess of $15,000.00 in the van which has since been sold by the
    respondent without any accounting to her, asserts that, while she had to rent
    accommodation for herself, the respondent not only lived rent free in the
    matrimonial home, but rented part of it to another person, and enjoyed other
    financial benefits from the cultivation of the land.
    [11] In that further affidavit the petitioner provides updated information on her earnings
    and expenses.
    [12] The respondent replied by a further affidavit filed January 9, 1996, which, I feel
    constrained to comment, is drafted in most unprofessional and intemperate
    language, unworthy of any Solicitor. In this affidavit he claims credit for virtually all
    the expenditure on the house, citing in support a letter from the petitioner’s former
    Solicitor exhibited to the affidavit. He also claims credit for virtually all expenditure
    on the van, conceding only that the petitioner borrowed $5,000.00 to insure it, but
    asserting that he sent her the money to repay this and another loan, in the sum of
    4
    $9,000.00, all of which he says she appropriated to herself, leaving him to pay
    both loans over again.
    [13] The respondent further alleges that the van was worked by the petitioner when he
    went to sea and she kept all the proceeds. He concedes that she remodelled the
    van from the proceeds.
    [14] The respondent denies that the petitioner purchased the land on which the
    matrimonial home is built before the marriage, out of her own resources. He
    claims to have sent the full purchase price for the land to the petitioner, who paid it
    over to the vendor of the land. The letter from Dr. Gonsalves, the petitioner’s then
    Solicitor, exhibited to the affidavit, confirms that the petitioner acknowledged the
    respondent’s interest in the property and expressed willingness to transfer title to
    same upon payment of the outstanding loan on the land of $2000.00. This letter is
    dated November 10, 1983.
    [15] In an affidavit sworn on April 7, 1993, filed on behalf of the respondent, Beresford
    Nicholas, the vendor of the land on which the matrimonial home is built, deposed
    that the respondent approached him concerning the purchase of the land in or
    about 1975, and promised to send the purchase price when he went away to take
    up employment at sea. The deponent says that subsequently, in that same year,
    the petitioner brought him the purchase price and said that her husband, the
    respondent, had sent it. He wrote a receipt in the respondent’s name, he says.
    Notwithstanding that, on 19th December, 1975, he executed a deed of conveyance
    of the land in favour of the petitioner, without mention whatsoever of the
    respondent or of any interest of the respondent in the land.
    [16] The petitioner does not appear to have responded directly to Nicholas’ very
    specific and direct allegations, even in her affidavit sworn on February 28, 1994
    and filed on March 1 that year. In that affidavit she does say that she bought the
    property with her own funds, prior to the marriage, but for some reason does not
    address Nicholas’ allegations, nor does she support her own allegations regarding
    5
    the loans she says she utilised to purchase the property, by exhibiting any records
    to verify the allegation. She has produced some bank records, but none of these
    relate to any period prior to 1978, and therefore are clearly not relevant to the
    alleged transactions prior to the marriage, which took place in 1974, or to the
    conveyance, which occurred in 1975.
    [17] I have come to what I consider the inescapable conclusion that both parties
    contributed to the acquisition and/or construction of the matrimonial home, and
    that the respondent contributed the major share of the resources towards that
    purpose. I therefore order that the respondent, who has admittedly lived in the
    said house for many years to the exclusion of the petitioner, must have the
    property, i.e., the land on which the matrimonial house is built, and the said house,
    free and clear of any interest of the petitioner. In the circumstances of this case, a
    clean break is clearly called for.
    [18] The said property is to be valued by a valuer agreed upon by the parties, or failing
    agreement to be appointed by the court, and the respondent must pay the
    petitioner one third of the value so found. Upon payment, the petitioner must
    execute a deed of conveyance transferring title in the said property to the
    respondent, free and clear of all incumbrances.
    [19] During much of the subsistence of the marriage the respondent was working as a
    seaman, and consequently was away from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He
    would send money home, which the petitioner was entitled to apply to household
    expenses, savings and other legitimate expenses or investments. I accept that the
    petitioner also worked, both as a civil servant, at relatively modest earnings, and
    as a private entrepreneur, her earnings from which activity helped to increase the
    family resources.
    [20] The marriage effectively lasted for somewhat less than 10 years, and the petitioner
    left the matrimonial home in 1984. During that period, despite her modest
    6
    earnings, she was able to acquire and build the matrimonial home, in her name,
    but as I have found, with resources provided by both parties.
    [21] By Indenture made December 5, 1989, and by Indenture dated December 30,
    1994, in each case many years after the effective breakdown of the marriage, the
    petitioner became entitled to two portions of land containing respectively 1 acre 4
    poles, and the other described as containing “One Lot more or less”, the latter by
    way of deed of gift from her father. There is no basis for the respondent’s claim to
    be entitled to any share in either of these properties. It is declared that the said
    properties are the exclusive property of the petitioner.
    [22] It is my view, from the evidence before me, that both parties benefited from the
    use of the van, and each had access to the income therefrom while it was in their
    hands. The van is no longer available for distribution, and no order is made with
    reference thereto.
    [23] I have taken into account arguments put forward by Counsel in written
    submissions, and in particular the principles adumbrated in Barnes v Barnes
    [1927] 3 All E.R. at 872, Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] 1 All E.R. at 830, and Hughes
    v Hughes [1993] 45 W.I.R. 149, and have come to the conclusion at which I have
    arrived bearing in mind these principles.
    [24] The petitioner and the respondent now live separate and independent lives, and
    have done so for many years past. Indeed to a considerable extent, even before
    the breakdown of the marriage, the parties lived largely separate and independent
    lives, due in part, though perhaps not entirely, to the nature of the respondent’s
    occupation as a seaman. I do not consider it appropriate, in the circumstances of
    this case, to make any order for maintenance or other financial provision, or
    property division order, other than the order made with respect to the former
    matrimonial home.
    [25] I make no order as to costs.
    7
    Brian G.K. Alleyne
    High Court Judge

    /yvonne-elizabeth-williams-v-kenneth-sylvester-williams/
     Prev
    Charmaine Angela Ruth Francis Nee Theobalds V Bradley Everette Francis
    Next 
    CONWAY BAY LIMITED et al v THE CORONER et al
    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