YVONNE MARIA MIGUEL v LEO HENRY MIGUEL

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 415 OF 2004 BETWEEN: YOLANDA RODNEY ClaImant v OSBOURNE QUOW Detendant Appearances: Mr. R. Williams tor Claimant Mr. S. E. Commlssiong tor Defendant 2006: April 20 DECISION 1'1 Curtis Rodney. a passenger In a vehicle driven by the detendant. died when the vehicle plunged over an embankment on a winding remote mountain road In the North Leeward part of St. Vincent. The vehicle tell some 100 feet The deceased was thrown trom the vehicle. rhe Court of Appeal tound the detendant was liable for his death and ordered that damages to be assessed be paid by the detendant. This is that assessment. [21 This claim is brought by the widoVv and administratrix of the Estate of the deceased on behalf of the btate of Curtis Rodney and on behalf of the dependants of the deceased. At the time of hIs death on 26th December 1497 CurtIS Rodne;. was 36 years old. The widoVv was :r:: The deceased earned $600 per month. Of this sum he spent $200 on himself. Mr. Commissiong for the Defendant submIts that the sum of $15.00 IS also to be deducted as NIS contributions. I do not agree. Had the deceased lived he would have paid N IS. He would also have benefited from those contributions by being able to collect any illness benefit to which he might become entitled. In the circumstances r do not deduct the $15.00. The monthly earnings of the deceased avallahle for his tamily was thus $400. [31 The claim is brought under two heads the claimant seeks to recover damages under Sections 3 and 13 of the Compensation tor Injuries Act Chapter 83 of the Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadine:.. 1990. Under Section 3: The Dependency Action r41 There are two dependants with whom I must be concerned. They are the claimant. the widow of the deceased. and the mmor child. Curtland Rodney. Curtland attains the age of 16 on 6th September 2006. For the purposes of my assessment his dependency would end there unless he continued at school full time or some other relevant considerations appl). However. as I consider that the widow might rightfully expect to benetit to a greater extent from the earnings of her husband as the years go by I will make no adjustment to the multiplicand by deducting any sum in respect of the son after his dependency would have come to an end. Thus I treat the mUltiplicand as $400 per month I deduct 25% of this as having been tor the benefit of the deceased who shared the household. I thus arrive at a figure of $300 x 12 $3.600 annually. [51 I have had the benefit of assistance b) both counsel. Mr. Williams cites the LJ K case Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islinglon Area Health Authority (1979). ALLER 910 where the House of Lords approved a multiplier of 14 for a 41 year old woman.

[6]Mr. Commissiong cites Hermina Spencer v Tripple General Contractinl;! Co. Ltd a High Court Decision where a multiplier of 10 was adopted for a year old man. He suggests a multiplier of 8 be chosen given the age of the deceased in this case was 36. f71 Having reviewed the authoritIes I am content to select a multiplIer of 1') years in this case. The award [0 the dependant:- IS thus $3600 x I') = $43.200. [81 r do so in the peculiar cIrcumstances of this care. More than seven years have already passed since the death of CurtIS Rodney. Were I to vie\\< the dependenc~ in two periods- the time up to assessment and then in future this gi ves almost R years for the past and a prospective award of only just over 4 years. Had the assessment been done III 199X a muluplier of 12 would have been apt Under Section 13 of the Act- The Survival Action Special Damages [91 The agreed Items otspeclai damages amount to $2.010.00. While I do not share Mr. Commissiong' s characterizatIOn or the cost of video tapmg as haVing been expended on 'personal delight' I agree that this sum cannot be recovered, I also do not allow the cost of obtaining letters of administration, Death is Inevitable. This expense would arise in any event General Damages Loss of Expectation of Life It is common to award a conventional sum under this head. In Ermine Charles v Ezra Hebert & Eworth Stevens No 171 of 2003 from this Jurisdiction I awarded a sum of$3.500.00. I make the same award here, Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenities

[11]Mr. Commissiong suggests that no award should be made under thiS head as the deceased 'died on the spot'. I do not see this as a man dying. unaware. struck down hy a bolt from the blue. Curtis Rodney would have been aware. throughout that fatal plunge of his impending Inlury and as it turned out. his death. Despite the brevity of the period I ImagIne his agony must have been acutt:. lint()ftunateh I have been offered no assistance 111 thiS regard b) counsel t()r the claimant. I restrict myself to a token sum of $:2.()()()()() under thIS head. The Lost Years [1:21 The deceased annual earnings were 60() x 12= $7.200.00. As noted above r adopt a multiplier of 12. This produces a total award tor loss meomt: over the lost yt:ars of $86.400. [n this case the dependant IS tht: claimant. She IS also the administratrix of the estate of her late husband. Obviously the claimant cannot recover an award under Section 3 as wei I as Section 1 3 of the Act. This would be a duplication as I explained in the cast: Ermine Charles v Ezra Herbert & Eworth Stevens. I must also deduct trom the total under the SurVival Action the amount the deceased would have spel1l un hlmsel t. agreed 111 thiS case to be one third of his income. [13l The total award is 86.400 - 28.800 $57.600.00 Special Damages '£ 2.010.00 Loss of Expectation of Life $ 1.500.00 Pain and Suffering $.~J)OO.QQ Total '£6:iill,OO r141 [must also include a sum t(Jr the award to the minor child for the loss to him. I assess his dependenc) at $100.00 per month or $1100.00 annually. As noted earlier he attains the age of 16 .wars thiS year. 1 adopt a mUltiplier of X years as there has been no evidence led that the dependency would last beyond his I hlh birthday. This gives a total of 1200'( X ·co $9.600.00. · .. The Award r award the claimant damages In the amount of $74.710.00. Prescribed costs nn this amount IS awarded of $IS.lf4.2.()O.

L(~

Brian C~e

MASTER

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CLAIM NO. 59 OF 1995 BETWEEN: YVONNE MARIA MIGUEL Petitioner v LEO HENRY MIGUEL Respondent Appearances: Mr. S. Raymond-Cadette for Petitioner Mr. P.R. Campbell a.c. and Mr. M. Peters for Respondent \~tt….~2006 DECISION

[1]The Respondent made an application for ancillary relief. He seeks a property adjustment order. the only property with which this matter is concerned is a 2 %acre parcel of land at Brighton with a dwelling house thereon.

[2]the property is registered on deed 2746 of 1982 as owned by both parties As tenants In common in equal shares. the Petitioner now says that She purchased the property on her own. No funds were received from the husband. the vesting of the land in both parties as tenants in common is an unfortunate accident caused by the lawyer. Let me state at the very outset that I reject thiS The conveyance was prepared by Mr. Errol Layne. a very experienced legal practitioner. He swore an affidavit. He was available to be crossexamined. Counsel for the Petitioner declmed to cross-examine Mr. Layne. I thus accept the specific declaration In the conveyance as evidence of the intention of The parties. Indeed the parties were first divorced In 1985. the Petitioner did not then make any attempt to have the legal ownership In the land at Brighton adjusted In any way. I thus hold that the land IS the property of the parties as tenants in common in equal shares.

[3]The parties were re-married in 1987 In 1988 the Petitioner engaged contractors to construct a house on the land In 1991 the parties returned to Saint Vincent from England. They moved into the house on the property. The Petitioner says that the Respondent contributed absolutely nothing towards the cost of construction of the matrimonial home. The Respondent says he paid £10.000 towards the construction costs. I prefer the evidence of the Respondent. I saw both parties. Both were cross-examined. The Petitioner struck me as being willing to go to any extremes to persuade the Court that the Respondent should have absolutely no share In the property. [4J I have already referred to her impugning the Integrity of Mr. E. Layne by suggesting that his preparation of the conveyance to the parties as tenants in common was without instructions. Of course, when Mr. Layne swore an affidavit rejecting this he was not challenged. The Petitioner was also cavalier in her treatment of the Court. An interim injunction ordered her to provide the Respondent with keys to the matnmonlal home forthwith. She only did so some 8 months later. She said that she did so when it was convenient to her. The court also ordered her not to let anyone other than herself live In the house. Yet under cross-examination she admitted to having rented out the house for one year and a half at a monthly rental of $500.00. As she put it. it was her house and she felt it was awful to be having Court orders telling her what to do with her house.

[5]I thus accept that the Respondent contributed £10,000 towards the building of the house. Having regard to what I have said above I would have been willing to leave the ownership in the property as it stands and declare that the parties are equally entitled to one moiety as tenants in common. However. the Respondent in his application only sought a onethird share. This, I expect, is because he agrees that the Petitioner contributed more than he did to the building of the home on the land. But, be that as it may, I am content to make the order in the terms requested by the Respondent [6J The property is declared to be owned by the parties as tenants In common. The Petitioner is entitled to two thirds and the Respondent IS entitled to one third. I consider this a fit case for both parties to bear their own costs as the Respondent’s position shifted from seeking one third to one half of the property while the Petitioner sought to have the entirety of the property. Since neither side has fully succeeded, I make no order as to costs. ~l~ Brian S. Cottle MASTER