J0SEPH CORNIBERT v BEATRICE GEORGE

,/ SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Suit No. 826 of 1995 Between: J08~PH CORNIBERT " - Plaintiff/Respondent vs ( BEATRICE GEORGE - Defendant/Applicant Mr . K. Monplaisir Q. C. for Plaintiff / Respondent with Miss. C. Hinkson Mr . H. Deterville with Mr. S. Anthony for Defendant/Applicant 1996: January 21 March J U D G MEN T d'Auvergne, J On the 21st November, 1995 the Plaintiff fil ed a writ o f Summons indorsed with a Statement of Claim . The Statement of Claim is reproduce d in its ent irety. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1.The Plaintiff is the son and heir at law o f the late EDMUND CORNIBERT. 2 . The Defendant is the beneficiary under the Last Wil l and Testament of the late CHARLES JOHN whose Executor under the said Will was SYLVESTER JOHN . 3 . The said Executor executed a Vesting Deed before Ira df Auvergne, Notary Royal and this document was handed to the Defendant her signature but was never et and consequence never registered. On or before 8th March, 1988 t said ster rece from the Plaintiff the sum of SIX HUNDRED ($600) DOLLARS as the final balance due on the purchase ce t sale of ONE CARRE of land sold by the late Charl~G John to Cornibert the father of the Plaintiff. The sa ster John gave a receipt to the Plaintiff which will re to at tr.e The said Sylvester has since The Plaintiff has called upon the Defendant to pe ect the Deed of Sale but the Defendant ected or re to so whereby the Plaintiff has suff s. I. ~:H:':! Plaintiff has at all material t and rema and willing to perform his obl sa contract. The defendant entered an appearance on 8th of , 1996 this form. P ease enter an appearance for defendant Beatrice Sued rein as Theresa George. that same day the defendant filed a Summons on applicat to strike out pleadings under es of the Supreme Court r 18 e 19 and under the inherent jurisdiction of Court and on ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action aga c defendant and that the plaintiff's action against the defendant be stayed or dismissed, and that the defendant be at liberty to enter judgment for her Costs including the Costs of s application to be taxed. This Summons was argued on the 26th , 1996 The Plaintiff applied an amendment for word resa to leted as the Christian name the t Beatrice to be submitted. was no obj ection and the amendment was ed so fendant became known as Beatric2 George. Learned Counsel for the defenjant submitt that Order 18 Rule 19 (3) of the Supreme Court Practice 1985 Edition Vol. 1 if a aim is on the face it obvious unsust e, s it is unarguable then it should be dismissed by s Summary process. He argued and submitted on every paragraph of t Statement of aim in chronological r. s arguments were as follows: Paragraph one (1) c~ t Statement of CIa scloses t Corn~bert is dead. Paragraph two (2) states that the defendant is t beneficiary under the last Will and Testament Charles John Executor was Sylvester John who paragraph five (5) states is so ad. Paragraph three (3) states that there was no Vest to property of Charles John. Paragraph four (4) states that the executor Sylvester John rece $600.00 as final balance due on purchase price of the Sale of one Carre of land sold by Charles John to Edmund Cornibert. Counsel contended that based on the pleadings the defendant not own any land, is not part of any contract with the pIa iff therefore is in no position to effect a Deed of Sale favour the Plaintiff. He argued that in order for the defendant to abide by t the Statement of Claim of the plaintiff she would have to personal representative of Charles John. He strenuously argued that the Statement Claim should be st f since it c0uld not be cured by an amendment, that it scloses no reasonable cause of action. Learned Counsel for t Plaintiff argued t the Claim d a e of success since money was paid for a ec= of land and a receipt was given by someone who had the capacity to such receipt; that under paragraph three (3) the defendant to a beneficiary under the will and had an erest succession of Charles John. He contended that an amendment could cure the defect and the estate Charles John could be made a party to the case. He quoted the Oft cited c~se . Drummond-Jackson V British Medical Association 1970 1 WLR 688, 1970 1 AER Page 1094. said that Learned Counsel for the Pla iff was no cause of action against the defendant and case scloses no cause of action. Learned Counsel for the defendant replied that t must a cause of action against the defendant and all causes action vest in the personal representatives of the deceased and tone cannot sue the beneficiary of a deceased. He further submitted that Charles John was the brother of fendant Beatrice George and that if any money was pa to one rson, another person could not and cannot be made liable. Having listened to arguments and applying law to t eadings in this Statement of Cl it is my view that this case could not be improved by an amendment since cause of act is ously bad and almost incontestably Dyson v Attorney General 1911 1 K.B. Page 419. Therefore under the discretionary jurisdirtio~ on me and having regard to the quality and circu~stance relat to the p12adings this action cannot be sust if ustice is to Matropo1itan Bank v Pooley 1885 16 App Cases at page 221 approved Riches v Director of Public Prosecutions 1973 1 W L R 10119, 1027 (973) 2 ALLER 935, 942. My Order is as lows: This action is dismissed. Plaintiff is to pay costs in the surr $500. 0 .... ~. :: Defendant.

SUZIE d'AUVERGNE

PUISNE JUDGE

Suit No. 826 of 1995 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 18/03/96