ANTHONY ESTWICK v OLIVE EDWARDS VALMONT

_ -~ . ~. .' . ""'! ..... ' _ •. -4 / - - - -:;"'~ -J_: ...... - ~ - ~- '- ~} \).. -~~ " ~ .. , .J.' , . I - : .;t .. : f...'.-':: ..... _4." ,,_,-:- ') h. 0-. , ~I ,) ""-:-~\ ~ •.. -'- .~ .,~ ... u. SAJ:N!r" LUCIA ~":'\,o' ... . ',). .. ,- , IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Q~ Suit No. 538 or 1995 Between: ANTHONY ESTWICK Plaintlff / Applicant v.s. (1) OLIVE EDWARDS VALMONT (2) WINSTON FRANCIS CENAC - Defendants / Respondents; Mr. K. Monplaisir for the Respondents Anthony Estwick in person ..... 1996: February 28th November 27th JUDGMENT d'Auvergne, J (Chambers) By summons and supporting Affidavit of Olive Edwards Valmont dat~- - and filed on the 18th day of December 1995 the First named; Respondent sought an order i n the following terms: That the Applicant Anthony Estwick De not allowed to make any further applications in this action without the leave of the Court first had and obtained and that, if notice o f any such application should be given wi :~c~c SllCr: i"eave, the Respondents should not be required to appear, and that it should be dismissed without being heard as well as for the costs of this application. The affidavit of Olive Edwards Valmont is hereby reproduced. AFFIDAVi'r :r, OL:tVB: EDWARDS VALHONT of Laborie Street in the City of. Castries in the I sland o f Saint Lucia, make oath and say as;. fol l ows:

1.The facts deposed to are true a~d ~orrect and to the best of my knowledge.

2.By a Power o f Attorney registered i n Vol. 136A No: l3g06& I was appoint ed .~tt o rney o f Ephraim Zeno Edwards. A true copy o f t he said Power o f Attorney i s now produc~ and shown to me marked "O.E.V.1".

3.Thereafter on t he 2nd May, 1984 in LA 44/84 I petitioned- on his behalf and it was ordered by t ne High Court o~ Saint Lucia t hat Mr. Edwards b,= granted Letters· of: Administration o f t he Succession of. the l ate Lydia B8rFL Edwards. A t rue copy of t he Order is now produced and!: shown to me marked "O.E.V.2."

4.I n Suit No. 212 o f 1992 Anthony Estwick, t he Plaintiff herein commenced an action against me and Winston Francis Cenac claiming i nter alia a declaration that "the- Property" being the properties belonging to t he Estate of Lydia Beryl Edwards be held by me on trust fo r sale and t o hold t he net proceeds of sale, f or t he Plaintiff. A t rue copy o f the originating Summons i s now p r oduced and shown to me marked "O.E.V.3."

5.On 17th June, 1992 the Court agreed that the Plaintiff had no l ocus standi, and it was ordered by Mr. Justice Albert Matthew chac t he Originat i ng Summons be struck off with costs to the Defendants i n t he sum o f $500 e ach. true copy of t he Judgment is now produced and shown to me ... ~ ""!'IF / ~ ,,~ ~' ~'-';1\<E =~ marked "O.E.V.4."

6.The Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Motion for Speccial Leave to Appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Matthew which application was dismissed for want of Prosecution. A true copy of the Certificate o f the Order o f the Court is now produced and shown to me marked "O.E.V.S."

7.Again, on 18th February, 1994 the Plaintiff filed another Originating Summor.s :i..n Suit No. 107 / 94 against Clarence Rambally and Winston Francis Cenac and me seeking discovery of the documents pertaining t o the Estate of Lydia Edwards which was dismissed with costs to the Defendants in the sum of $500 each. A true copy of the said Order of the Court is now produced and shown to me marked "O.E.V.6."

8.By Appeal No. l of 1994 the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion of Appeal against the decision referred to ~.n paragraph 7 herein.

9.Thereafter I the Plaintiff commenced this Suit seeking to set aside the Order given in L.A. No. of 1984 exhibited herein as "O.E.V.2."

10.I verily believe that each action commenced by the Plaintiff in respect of the Order made in the Estate of Lydia Edwards is an attempt to frustrate and circumvent the various Orders of the Court being an abuse of the process of : he Court as wel l as being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

11.I also verily believe that, if not restrained or stopped, the Plaintiff will avail himself of every means to continue to come before this or any Court in Saint Lucia ,".It.'t'' '''llI'"".: .• ~~; :-;t:, ,,,,&~ ,,:,, : ,'-;!,f" :'~ .• -, in respect of the same substantial matter pertaining:::: ta the Estate of the late Lydia Beryl Edwards.

12.In these premises: humbly ask this Honourable Court ~ grant an Order in terms of the Summons herein. The application and affiiavit referred to by Counsel for the First named Respondent are also reproduced. Take Notice, that this application will be. heard by a Judge in Chambers at the High Court of Justice, P ~yn~er Street~ Castries, Saint Lucia, on the 18th day of October , 19 95 at 9 o'clock, in the forenoon, or soon thereafter as Council can be heard by counsel on the behalf of the Applicant Anthony Estwick, for an order to set aside the order given on the 16th day of May 1984, granting Letters of Administration for the succession of the l ate Lydia Beryl Edwards to the No. Respondent by reason of Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984 for irregularity or fraud. And that t.he costs occasioned by this Applicant be costs in the cause. And further take notice that the grounds of this Application are: (1) That fraud or article has been made use of by the No. 1 Respondent to obtain Letters of Administration for the succession o f che l ate Lydia Beryl Edwards. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION I, Anthony Estwick of Marc, in the quartcL of Castries, Producer of Local Souvenirs and gift items, makes an oath and say as foll ows: I am the Applicant in the above named c ause or matter. That by reason of the documents marked as exhibits ~ ___ " ___ nr,tW5f'b@ 5 ';:~~':::;;,':::'::'l~" I,. .. ,~ ...... relating to certain transactions that were made between: the Applicant and the land Lydia Beryl Edwards Barrister At La.~ (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased) . 3. And by reason of the sum of $16,044.50 shown under paragraph (b) of the Affidavit of ·asset-.s and liabilities, in support of Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984 shown ,,-mcmg the bundle or documents marked as exhibits "BII. 4. That the Applicant has a legal right or interest in the. estate, and in the minutes or records of the Deceased and. in certain documents relating to transactions that were made between the Applicant and the Deceased pertaining to the: estate of the Deceased. 5 . That the statements made in the Affidavit of Support of Petition L.A. No. 44 of · 1984, by the No.1 Respondent, are a fabrication of false evidence with the intent to defraud or deprive ,the Applicant of his lawful rights or interest in the estate of the Deceased on the grounds that: (1) The No. 1 Respondent Olive Edwards Valmont, and Ephraim Zeno Edwards, are the lawful brother and sister of the Deceased Lydia Beryl Edwards, as is evidence by the last will and testament of the late Mary De. Barnard, also called Leonard De Barnard, which shows that the said Mary De Barnard was the Mother of the Deceased Lydia Beryl Edwards. (2) And that the said Mary De Barnard was also the Mother of: (1) Ephraim Zeno Edwards, (2) Clifford Anthor.y Edwards (3) Olive Edwards Valmont,. the No.1 Respondent herein (4) Ruth Hilda Edwards and (5) Mathilda Vital is And thac the said Mary De Barnard was also the Grand Mother of the children of the said Olive Edwards Valmont ..... ~_ _ .. ~_,.. . ........ __ .... _. .&- . "::IIP':<.""!-:;;:.".,,~-.. ~ .:;~). . ; ~ •. _';';~r :-:7,~Jff':- "~ and Arhot Val:nont. Al~ of whom were the lawful heirs.. of the Deceased within the heritable degree. A copy of the- last will and testament of the said Mary De Barnard i~ shown herewith and marked as exhibit "e" . (4) That the No. 2 Respondent is the Solicitor and legal representati ve of the Deceased, and Senior partner in thp!- law firm formerly kn0WTI as Cenac and Edwards. (5) That the signatur: that is on the promissory note dat~ the 30th July 1983 for the sum of US$120,OOO.OO shown among the bundle of documents marked as exhibits liB" is not the true signature of the Deceased as is evidenced by the signatures of the Deceased shown on the documents marked as exhibit "D" "E" and "F". (6) That to the best of my knowledge information and belie£ that the Deceased did leave a valid will among her' records, and I further state that the minutes or record9- of the Deceased which has the evidence to prove that the Deceased did not die intestate are been withheld or concealed by the No.1 and the No. 2 Respondents. 6 . That the original Deeds or minutes of the De~eased and the documents relating to the transactions that were made between the Applicant and the deceased, pertaining to the estate of the Deceased are in che custody of possession o f the No.1 and the No.2 Respondent . 7. That to the best af ~y ~nowledge information and belief that the Deceased in her life time did not transfer or transmit her original Deeds to che No. 2 Respondent as provided under Section 9 Chapter ::6 of the Legal Practitioner Ordinance. 8. And therefore, the original Deeds of the Deceased should have .w. ~.~~~~'rt" ' ""Y " been or ought to have been deposited in the office of ~ Registrar as required under Section 10 (1) (3) Chapter 116 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. That the No. 1 or ~he No. 2 Respondents has led to deposit the original Deeds of the Deceased in the office of the Registrar as rE:.qu~.::-ed under the provisions of the said Ordinance. o. And under the provisions of Section 10 (1 4) Chapter 116 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance that the No. 1 or the No. 2 Respondents are guilty of an offence against ~he said Ordinance. "1 And states that all the necessary inquiries required the law for the prevention of error or fraud was not ituted by the Registrar of the High Court before Letters of Administration for the succession of ~ 0eceased was granted to the No. 1 Respc)ndent by reason of the Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984. This action is prescribed under article 1014 Chapter 243 of the Saint Lucia Code of Civil Procedure. ::"2. And further states that a notice of the Appointment the No. 1 Respondent as the curator to the succession Deceased was never advertised in the Saint Lucia Gazette, as required under article ::"066 Chapcer 243 of the Saint Luc Code of Civil Procedure.

13.The Applicant states that the No.2 Respondent has neglected or has refused to continue to pe arm i.ne aut. the office of the Deceased regarding a Hypothecary Obligation executed before the Deceased on che 30th day of November ::"978 at the office of the said law firm formerly :..::nown as ::::enac and Edwards, by which the Applicants parcel or lac of land registered in Vol, 118 No. 121990 was morcgaged with the Saint ~, .. ~~ Lucia Co-operative Bank Limited, to secure debts ~, liabilities up to a limit of $3,500.00 with interest and costs and registered on the same day in Vol. 131a No. 122365 as the first registered claim against the said parcel or l ot of ~ registered in Vol. 118 No. 121990 in f avour o f che Saint Lucia Co-operative Bank Limi t ed. : 4. And by a Deed of Radiation executea befor~ the Deceased at the· office of the said Law firm of Cenac and Edwards on the 7th -:.ay of August 1979 in favour of the Applicant and registered;; on the 9th day of August 197 9 in Vol. 13 2a No. 124979 that the said Hypothecary Obligat ion registered in Vol. 131a No. 122365 against the said parcel or l ot of l and registered in Vol. 118 No. 121990 was discharged.

15.And by reason of the neglect or failure of the No. Respondent to continue to perform the duties of the o ffice of the Deceased regarding the said Hypothecary Obligation registered in Vol. 131a No. 122365 againsc the parcel or lot of land registered in Vol. 118 No. 121990 and released by Deed or Radiation registered i n Vol. 132a No. 124979.

16.That on the 22nd day of July 1991 that he the Applicant was arrested by the Sheriff of the High Court of J~stice, and was committed to prison for a term of six weeks for failure to vacate his parcel or lot of land registered in Vol . 118 No. 121990 by reason of the said Hypothecary Obligation registered in Vol. 131a No. 122365 and released by Deed of Radiation registered in Vol. 132a No. 124979 by the Deceased.

17.And as a result of the matters referred to above that the Applicant has suffered, and continues to suffer injuries, losses and damages.

18.And that the No. 1 and the No. 2 Respondents are liable to " . ? 'i damages. 19 . The Applicant repeats paragraphs 2, to 14 and stateSit CIa' lows: (a) That the original Deeds or minutes of the Deceased, a.ndt the documents relating to the transactions tiJ.at were made between the Applicant, and the Deceased relating to i:hai:. estate of the Deceased are being wi thheld or concealed bp. the No.1 and No.2 Respondents. (b) That the statements made by the No. 1 Respondent in ~. Affidavit of Support of Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984 ~ a fabrication of false evidence with the intent to' defraud or deprive the Applicant of his lawful rightSit0 QlII'I;; interests in the estate of the Deceased and to C~iII" injuries, losses and damages, to the Applicant. c) And that he the Applicant has suffered and contin~ea~ suffer inj uries , losses and damages by reason of. t:~0' matters referred to above. d) That the order given on the 16th day of May 1984 by ~ Registrar of the High Court of Justice granting Lett~. of Administration for this succession of ~he late Ly~~ Beryl Edwards, to the No. 1 Respondent by reason OE Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984 is irregular and or was fraudulently obtained. O. And therefore the Applicant is hereby applying to the Hono~rable Court fo= an crder: 1) That the order given on the 16th day of May 1984 by the Registrar of the High Court of Justice granting Letters of Administration for the succession of the late Lydia Beryl Edwrds to the No. 1 Respondent by reason of Petition L.A. No. 44 of 1984 be set aside and or be declared null, void and of none effect. (2) That the Courl: of Judge makes an order regarding; ~ disposal of the original Deeds or minutes of the Deceased. (3) That a11 the documents relating to the transaction. that. were made between the Applican'c and the Deceased relating; to the Estate of the Deceased be delivered forthwith ta- the Applicant. (4) That the No. Respondent grant permission to the Applicant to inspect the premises of the Deceased at:. Jeremie Street in Castries to inspect and to take copi.ea:- or extracts of any Deeds or minutes and any other documents forming part of the official and unofficial.. records of the Deceased . (5) And that the No. 2 Respondent grant permission to the Applicant to inspect the Minutes of the partnership. and/or to give to the Applicant copies or extracts of an~ Deeds or any other documents forming part of the official and unofficial records thereof. (6) An order that the Applicant be at liberty to conduct all necessary and consequential accounts, directions and inquiries relating to his rights or interest in the estate of the Deceased. (7) An order that the Application be awar.ded his costs occasion by this Applicant including the costs of service of this Application on the No. 1 and on the No. Respondents to be taxed. ...... "-~~ ( 8 ) Damages- for injuries, losses, incoJ.1Ven±eD£B\'< embarrassments, humiliation, mental pains and suffe~ suffered by the Applicant to be assessed and costs to be taxed. A further affidavit dated and flled on the 24th November, 1 995 ia a lso reproduced. AFFIDAVIT I , Anthony Estwick of Marc, in the quarter of Castries producer of- Local Souvenirs and gift items, makes an oath and say as follows: 1 . I am the applicant in the above cause or matter. 2 . That the applicant has a right of action by reason of the matters disclosed in Affidavit of support of application to. set aside f or irregularity and or fraud and upon th~ documentary evidence submitted and to the court in the abov~ cause or matter. 3 . That the No.2 Respondent the senior partner in the l aw firm, f ormally known as Cenac and Edwards, has refused and continue to refuse to perform the duties of the off ice of the late Lydia Beryl Edwards Attorney at Law and junior partner in the law firm of Cenac and Edwards who died on the 7th day 01: December 1 980 at J eremie Street in the City of Castries. 4 . That the original deeds or minutes of the l ate Lydia BeryL Edwards are known to be in the custody or possession of the No. 2 Respondent and that the original deeds of the deceased. has not been disposed of as required under section 10, Chapter 116 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. That no other notary has been appointed to continue t o perform the duties of the office of the late Lydia Beryl Edwards. --------- - .. _--- ---- 6 . That no nutice. of the appointment of the &0. 1 RespoDdent~ the curator for the succession of the late Lydia BEm?'E Edwards, were E:ver advertised in the Saint Lucia Gazette as :::-equired under articl e 1066 Chapter 243 of the Saint Lucia> Code of Civil Procedure. 7 . That documents of agreement that were made bet'<leen tb:IB applicant and tr:e deceased Lydia Beryl Edwards , t o se~L, certain portion of her estate to the applicant for valuable consideration has bee:::1 withheld or has been fraudulentl.w concealed by t he No. 1 and t he No. 2 Respondents. 8 . That t he said document s of agreement was i n the custody or possession of deceased at t he t ime of her death without copi~ of t he said documents been de l ivered t o t he appl i cant befOl!e t he death of t he deceased. 9 . That t he No. 1 and t he No. 2 Respondents who have the custo~' of the possession of the said documents of the agreement ~, t he official records of the deceased has refuse and continue' t o refuse t o deliver up t he said documents to the applicant unless ordered by t he court or the j udge so to do. 10. That the order given on the 16th day of May' 1984, by the· Registrar of t he High Court of J uscice grant i ng Letters or Administration for the succession of t he deceased Lydia Beryl Edwards to the No. 1 Respondent by reason of pet i t i on L.A. No. 44 of 84, i s i rregular and/ or was f raudul ently obtained. 11 . The applicant l erily be l ieve that the deceased Lydia Beryl. Edwards did deposit copies of the sai d documents o f agreement and other documents i n her safety deposit box in t he St. Lucia Co-operati ve Bank Ltd fo r s afe keeping and that he t he applicant would :::-equire an order from the court or j udge in order t hat t he sai d box be opened. ,::::a;::, '~:: .:~.~:;" 12 . The applicant does not have the means to make the necea £2£#.; disbursements and by reason of the matters referred to" im paragraph 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 above that the applicant is askin~ the Honourable Court or Judge for:- (1) ~eave to proceed in forma pauperis and/or that the ord~ given on the 15th day of May 1984, by the registrar o:f:.' the H:'gh Court of Justice granting Letters of' Administration for the succession of the late Lydia Berp'!':t Edwards to the No. 1 Respondent by reason of peti.tiom. L.A. No. 44 of 84 be set aside and/or be declared. null,.. void and of non effect upon the fact stated in affidav±t of support of application to set aside for regularity or fraud, and upon the evidence contained in the documeat::. submitted to the Court in the above cause or matter_ (2) An order that the' safety deposit box of the deceased. believe to be in the St. Lucia Co-operative Bank Ltcii'1:e:'" oper,ed to the applicant and that the applicant: b.e:, permitted to inspect the said box and to take copies or extracts of any documents related to his rights or to: interest in the estate of the late Lydia Beryl Edw~ (3) That the applicant be permitted to inspec.t his mortgage record in the St. Lucia Co-operative Bank Ltd. file ML2 No. 51831 of the 30-11-78 believe to contain i nformation. relative to the transactions that were made between the application and the deceased. (4) The order was azkcd for in the Affidavit of support of application to set aside for irregularity and/or fraud. in the above cause or matter. At the hearing Learned Senior Counsel informed the Court that the Summons was an unusual one and it was brought under order 18 rule ""'~':?,~~.:~~- " ~ ~ .~ . -';;',":!# n 'PC WE "',lI':"l<~r"' ''::· reproc1ucad in. pages and is vociferously argued that the applicant is a :..ng the Court's time with his various applications J US and vexatious and an abuse of the process of ::e applic ation should be dismissed wit~:")ut be.l.ng ::e shoul d be made to pay the costs of the ;ntire ~ f fidavit of Olive Edwards Valmont and the He made particular reference to the j udgment of ed on t he 17th of June, 1992 where the Learned .nthony Estwick had no Locus Standi i n Case 212 of 3e Anthony Estwick petitioned the Court claiming 3 a decl aration that -:Jperty" being the properties belonging to the ) f Lydia Beryl Edwards be held on trust for sale e Edward s Val mont and that the net proceeds of ::; furnished by = be given to me. Lucia and 2. a and pursuant ?plied f or special leave to appeal and the j on the 23rd ~smissed for want of prosecution. lary, 1 9 94 he filed an originating Summons in Suit le hundred and i ed, thi r d Respondent, Clarence Rambally c l aiming -lments pertaining to the estate of Lydia Beryl sough t t o set aside t he order o f Letters o f ~ anted t o Ephraim Zeno Edwards on the 16th May, ~ SS NAMES ~ d of irregularity (under Order 2 Rule 2 (1) (2) of Su;:r.-e!7LC Court ) ; t hat fraud had been used by the in ~'-i {:::. ~ "".p - =spondent in obtaining the said Letters of K (2 ) :Jr t he succession of the l ate Lydia Beryl Edwards. ~ rgued that t he Plaintiff Anthony Estwick was on a .on with hi s many applications and t hat the only new ~'~~f~_ lIm •• lf1 '~":=-:-"'i--:;~- ,~ .• _o, r< 27M TIf,!!: The exhibit represents a registration under a Business Names, Ordinance No. 20 of 1980 dated 29th day of April 1981 called "Savitar Enterprising." Learned Counsel argued that each action commenced by the Plaintiff Estwick in respect of the order made in the estate of Lydia Edwards was an attempt to frustrate and circumvent the various Qrders;· of: the Court and was th.:::refore an abuse of the process of the Court as well as being scandalous and vexatious. He said that it should be noted that Estwick had not paid any of the costs granted by the Court in the various applications. He urged the Court to grant the order as set out in the application of the 18th December, 1995 and quoted the case of Lord Kjnn-*~T Field 1905 to Chan. 306. Mr. Estwick in reply to the application told the Court 11 I, have a right of action under Business Company known as Savitar Enterprising formed between Beryl Edwards and myself. When the latter died (he means former ) the documents were in her custody Legal Practitioner Ordinance." CONCLUSION After careful analysis o f the nature and object o f this present application and considering all th~ facts of the entire case I find -\'<.----, that the present case is on all fd ... s with Lord Kinnaird v Field-- 1905 Chan. Division Page 306 and I adopt the order that was made by Warrington J after distinguishing the cases of Grepe v Loan 37 Chan. Division 1618 and Suir v Newton (1886) 17 Chan. Division 169 and my order is therefore as follows: That the Applicant .:mthony 2stwick be not allowed to make any further applications in this action without the l eave of the Court first had and obtained, and that, if notice of any such application -.:.:met'S" .camW.' .'.' should be given without such l ea'1'e, the Respondents should not be required to appear, unless the judge on the return thereof shall so direct, the application shall be dismissed without being heard. ~~ ~", ~..s::- ,,~~ That the applicant Anthony Estwick do pay Costs i n the sum of $SOO t o the ~ i rst named Respondent. ~ ~\ ~ '~ .~ SUZIE d'AUVERGNE PUISNE JUDGE

Suit No. 538 of 1995 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 27/11/96