Leroy Silston v Ruthlyn Chambers

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHPB 2009/0207 BETWEEN: In the Estate of Edris Silston, Deceased LEROY SILSTON and RUTHLYN CHAMBERS Appearances: Mr. Kendrickson Kentish for the Claimant Mrs. Eleanore Solomon for the Respondent 2009: November 19 2010: April 16 JUDGMENT Claimant Respondent

[1]MICHEL, J.: On 20th October 2009 the Claimant, Leroy Silston, filed Notice of Application naming Ruthlyn Chambers as Respondent, by which application he sought directions for the continuance of the life of a caveat filed by him in the Estate of the late Eldris Silston and the just disposition of a probate action between him (as Caveator) and the Respondent (as the person claiming to be entitled to a grant of probate in the Estate of Eldris Silston). The application was supported by an affidavit of the Claimant.

[2]The grounds of the application are that: 1. The said Edris Silston, Deceased, lacked the mental capacity to execute a Will on or about 16th January 2008; 2. The said Edris Silston did not know and approve of the contents of the Will purported to be executed by her on or about 16th January 2008; 3. The said Will was executed in suspicious circumstances, namely at atime when Edris Silston lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute a Will. 4. The said Will is void and of no effect; 5. The Caveator is the widower of Edris Silston, Deceased and is the person entitled to agrant of Letters of Administration in the captioned estate.

[3]On 5th November 2009 the Respondent filed an affidavit in response, which affidavit was accompanied by acopy of the Will of Eldris Silston and acopy of the Judgment of Blenman, J. on a previous application by the Claimant relative to the Estate of Eldris Silston. On 13th November 2009 an affidavit was ‘filed by Mr. Franklyn A. Clarke who prepared and witnessed the execution of the aforesaid Will.

[4]On 19th November 2009 the Claimant’s application came before the Court in Chambers whereupon Mr. Kendrickson Kentish, of Counsel for the Claimant, recounted some of the procedural history of the matter and then submitted, on behalf of the Claimant, that the Court’s leave is being sought for the Caveator to file a claim form. He submitted that the application is akin to an application for leave; all that the Court has to determine is whether the Claimant’s application discloses arguable ‘ .. ” .· grounds for challenging the Will of Mrs. Silston; it is not part of the Court’s function at this stage to determine the validity of the Will; that is a matter for a Court which has examined all of the pleadings and heard all of the evidence. He submitted that, given the disparity between what the Claimant contends and what the Respondent contends, there are arguable grounds for challenging the Will of Eldris Silston and so the Court is asked to grant the application.

[5]Mrs. Eleanore Clarke-Solomon, of Counsel for the Respondent, opposed the Claimant’s application and submitted that Mrs. Sllston’s Will was validly made and executed.

[6]Both Mr. Kentish and Mrs. Solomon-Clarke addressed a portion of the Judgment of Blenman, J. where she criticised a finding by a medical doctor that Mrs. Silston had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease for 18 months prior to the date of his report and she declared that she was unable to accept this part of the doctor’s evidence as credible.

[7]Mr. Kentish submitted that these remarks by Blenman, J. were obiter dicta because what was before the Learned judge for determination was whether Mrs. Silston lacked the capacity at the time to manage her affairs and so her views on that aspect of the doctor’s finding were obiter dicta and were in any event arrived at without the benefit of any medical evidence challenging the finding of the doctor. Mrs. Clarke-Solomon on the other hand submitted that Blenman, J. had made a decision on that issue in her judgment and this was therefore adecided issue and the Court ought to dismiss the Claimant’s application.

[8]This Court accepts the submission of Mr. Kentish that the issue which Blenman, J. was called upon to decide in the matter which came before her did not extend to the making of adetermination as to how long Mrs. Silston was suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and any comment by her on doctors’ opinions on that could only be obiter dicta. Moreover, Mr. Kentish also appears to be correct in his submission that there was no evidence before the Learned Judge to contradict the medical opinion of a medical doctor and it would not therefore have been open to the Learned Judge to make a contrary finding. In any event, the statements by the Learned Judge on the doctor’s findings only go as far as to question his assertion or opinion that Mrs. Silston was suffering with Alzheimer’s disease for 18 months prior to his report; Mrs. Silston’s Will was made in January 2008, which was less than 18 months from the date of the medical report, and so she could have then be suffering with Alzheimer’s even although she was not suffering with it 18 months prior to the doctor’s report.

[9]As persuasive as the affidavit evidence of Mr. Franklyn A. Clarke might be as to the testamentary capacity of Mrs. Silston at the time of the execution of the Will in January 2008, the fact is that a challenge has been made to the authenticity of the Will of Mrs. Silston and it is not my function at this juncture to determine the merits or demerits of that challenge.

[10]The Court accepts the uncontradicted submission of Mr. Kentish that once it appears that the Claimant’s application discloses arguable grounds for challenging the Will of Mrs. Silston, then the Claimant should be allowed to have his challenge determined by a Court which would have examined the pleadings and heard the evidence. (11] The Court accordingly grants leave to the Claimant to file his claim challenging the validity of the Will of Eldris Silston. The claim is to be filed and served within one month of the making of this Order, failing which the Respondent may proceed with her application for Letters of Administration with Will annexed.

[12]The Receiver(s) appointed by the Court of the Estate of Eldris Silston will continue to function until such time as an Administrator of the Estate is appointed whether with or without a Will annexed.

[13]The costs in this matter will be borne by the Estate of Eldris Silston.