Marjorie Bennett of Beachmont, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Intended Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Michael Bennett Deceased (by her lawful Attorney of Record Camille Lakhram of Queen's Drive) Claimant v Cibc First Caribbean International Bank of Upper Halifax Street, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Defendant Stanley Hinds (otherwise Standly Hinds) Executor of the will of Kendol (otherwise "Kendal") Franklyn Hinds Deceased Claimant v CIBC First Caribbean International Bank of Upper Halifax Street, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Defendant

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Henry, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 March 2015
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2015] ECSC J0316-1
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Date: 16 March 2015
• Docket Number: HCVSVG2014/0243

[2015] ECSC J0316-1

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

HCVSVG2014/0243

HCVSVG2014/0244

In the Matter of the Administration of Estates Act Cap. 486 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2009

and

In the Matter of the Estate and Succession Duties Act Cap. 490 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2009

and

In the Matter of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 Parts 21 & 67

Between:

Marjorie Bennett of Beachmont, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Intended Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Michael Bennett Deceased (by her lawful Attorney of Record Camille Lakhram of Queen's Drive)

Claimant

and

Cibc First Caribbean International Bank of Upper Halifax Street, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Defendant

In the Matter of the Administration of Estates Act Cap. 486 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2009

and

In the Matter of the Estate and Succession Duties Act Cap. 490 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2009

and

In the Matter of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 Parts 21 & 67

Between:

Stanley Hinds (otherwise Standly Hinds) Executor of the will of Kendol (otherwise "Kendal") Franklyn Hinds Deceased

Claimant

and

CIBC First Caribbean International Bank of Upper Halifax Street, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Parnel Campbell Q.C. for Claimants/Applicants,

Ms Nicole Sylvester for the Defendants.

BACKGROUND

1 Henry, J. (Ag.): This decision arises out of two separate unrelated claims commenced by Mrs Marjorie Bennett, the intended administratrix of the estate of Charles Michael Bennett deceased, on the one hand, and Mr Stanley Hinds executor of the Will of the late Kendol Franklyn Hinds on the other hand. Mrs Bennett and Mr S. Hinds are seeking orders that CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank ("CIBC") divulge confidential information to them regarding the respective estates of the testator and intestate. They have also applied to be appointed as representatives of the deceased persons' respective estates. They and CIBC have agreed that the claims should be heard together as the subject matter is similar and CIBC is the common defendant. The cases are accordingly dealt with jointly in furtherance of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 ("CPR").

2 In July 1984, Mr Kendol Franklyn Hinds (deceased) made a will in which he appointed Mr Stanley Hinds and Mr Maurice King as executors. He passed away on December 19, 2012. The deceased held a safety deposit box at CIBC's premises in Kingstown which Mr Stanley Hinds has sought to access without success since Mr Kendol Hinds' passing. CIBC insists on production of grant of Probate or written authorization from the deceased's heirs or legal personal representative before it will permit access to the safety deposit box. Mr Stanley Hinds submits that he is unable to extract probate because he does not know what is contained in the safety deposit box or its value. He has brought this action to obtain an order compelling CIBC to grant him access to the safety deposit box and to provide him with any other financial information regarding the deceased's affairs.

3 Mrs Marjorie Bennett is the widow of Mr Charles Michael Bennett deceased and the self-proclaimed intended administratrix of his estate. Mrs Bennett's lawful attorney on record, Ms Camille Lakhram initiated this claim on her behalf seeking an order compelling CIBC to disclose to her i, "all relevant financial information in its power including details of any balances held in any account or accounts standing or which formerly stood in the name of Charles Michael Bennett at and after 26 ^th June 2009 as may be reasonable necessary or expedient to assist the Claimant in the discharge of her statutory duties as widow and intended Administratix" of the deceased's estate. She is also seeking disclosure from CIBC of details of an insurance policy that the deceased held with ALICO. Ms Lakhram deposes that CIBC has twice refused to provide this information to Mrs Bennett's legal practitioner.

4 Both claims were brought under the Administration of Estates Act ii, the Estate and Succession Duties Act iii and Parts 21 and 67 of the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR") 2000. In each matter, the request to CIBC was made by the lawyer representing Mrs Bennett and Mr Stanley Hinds. Mr S. Hinds had also previously made a request in person. CIBC filed Applications in both matters seeking orders that the claims be struck out because they are misconceived and amount to an abuse of the court's process. CIBC contends inter alia that Mrs Marjorie Bennett and Mr Stanley Hinds do not have the legal right to bring the claims. The court must decide whether Mrs Bennett or Mr Hinds should be appointed as representative of the respective deceased's estates and whether the claims should be struck out. In deciding whether the claims should be struck out the court must determine:

(a) whether Mrs Bennett or Mr Hinds had the legal capacity to bring these claims; and

(b) whether CIBC has a duty to release the requested confidential information to the intended administratrix or executor in the absence of a grant of Letters of Administration or Probate.

ISSUES

5 The issues in this matter can be more conveniently analyzed by first considering the bases for the respective claims to determine whether Mr Hinds and Mrs Bennett possess the necessary locus standi in these matters; and whether CIBC owes either of them a statutory duty of disclosure. These consideration are critical to assessing whether the claims should be struck out. The issues are:

• I. Whether (a) Mrs Marjorie Bennett; or,

  (b) Mr Stanley Hinds

  possesses the legal capacity to initiate these respective claims'

• II. Whether CIBC had at the material time, or has a statutory duty under section 32 (d) iv of the Banking Act or contractual duty to:

  • (a) grant Stanley Hinds access to the contents of the deceased Kendol Franklyn Hinds' safety deposit box; or disclose to Stanley Hinds details pertaining to the contents of the deceased's safety deposit box and unspecified financial information relating generally to the deceased's financial affairs; or

  • (b) disclose to Marjorie Bennett unspecified financial information pertaining to the deceased Charles Michael Bennett's bank account and particulars of his insurance policy with Alico; without production of Probate or Letters of Administration or written authorization from the deceased's personal representative?

• III. Whether the claim brought by:

  (a) Marjorie Bennett; or

  (b) Stanley Hinds;

  should be struck out?

• IV. Whether:

  (a) Marjorie Bennett; or

  (b) Stanley Hinds;

  should be appointed legal personal representative of the respective deceased's estate?

ANALYSIS

Issue No. I. Did Mrs Marjorie Bennett or Mr Stanley Hinds possess the legal capacity to initiate the respective claims'

Stanley Hinds

6 Mr Stanley Hinds commenced the instant proceedings in his capacity as Executor (of the Will of Kendol Franklyn Hinds) by filing a fixed date claim form, pursuant to Parts 21 and 67 of the CPR. Part 21 deals with appointment of representative parties while Part 67 sets out the procedural framework for dealing with administration claims. Mr Hinds avers that his co-executor Mr Maurice King has consented to initiation of these proceedings. v He has not provided any written authorization or confirmation from Mr King to this effect. He has however exhibited a copy of the subject Will, vi in which the testator appoints Maurice King and "Standly Hinds" as executors. vii Mr Stanley Hinds explains that his name is misspelled in the Will and that he is the "Standly Hinds" named in it. viii If Stanley Hinds and "Standly Hinds" are one and the same person, there is no dispute that he is one of the executors of Kendol Franklyn Hinds' Will. This assertion is not challenged by CIBC.

7 It is trite law that an executor derives his title as executor from the testator's Will and not the grant of probate ix and that the testator's personal property vests in the executor at the testator's death. x An executor may be either original or by representation xi and he is regarded as the testator's legal personal representative in both cases. xii While the executor is entitled to commence legal proceedings before applying for probate, he is constrained from receiving judgment without extracting probate, because he cannot establish his title, xiii or give a valid discharge or receipt xiv without it. In practical terms, this formality protects the "executor" and a third party dealing with him, from claims by another "executor" appointed under a subsequent Will. The CPR authorizes an executor to file a claim for relief or for determination of any question xv pertaining to the administration of an estate. The court may also appoint persons to represent others who are interested in or affected by proceedings about a deceased person's estate. xvi There is therefore no legal impediment which precludes Mr Stanley Hinds from initiating this action for relief in connection with the administration of Mr Kendol Franklyn Hinds' estate. In fact, case law and the applicable provisions of the CPR establish that as executor, he is qualified to lodge this claim. He would however need to extract probate before receiving judgment unless an appropriate order is made under the CPR. xvii In the premises, I find that Mr Stanley Hinds had the necessary capacity to file the instant claim.

8 Ms Camille Lakhram purports to bring this action as attorney on record for and on behalf of her mother, Marjorie Bennett. She has not produced the power of attorney under which she purports to act. In any event, she brought this action by fixed date claim form pursuant to Parts 21 and 67 of the CPR. She asserts that Marjorie Bennett is Charles Michael Bennett's widow and she wishes...