Winston Sergeant Claimant v Maurice Sergeant Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: THOM, J
• Judgment Date: 16 September 2008
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2008] ECSC J0916-9
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Date: 16 September 2008
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. 244 OF 2008

[2008] ECSC J0916-9

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

HIGH COURT CIVIL

CLAIM NO. 244 OF 2008

Between:

Winston Sergeant

Claimant

and

Maurice Sergeant

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Carlyle Dougan Q.C. for the Claimant

Mr. Olin Dennie for the Defendant

THOM, J

1 Winston Sergeant and Maurice Sergeant are the sons of John Wesley Sergeant, deceased. John Wesley Sergeant also had six other children. Between 1988 and 1997 John Wesley Sergeant executed several Deeds of Gift conveying land to all of his children except Winston Sergeant. On January 24, 1997 John Wesley Sergeant made a will in which Maurice Sergeant was named as the executor. In his will John Wesley Sergeant made several bequests including a bequest of one parcel of land to Winston Sergeant and Ruby Sergeant jointly. Both Winston Sergeant and Ruby Sergeant did not want to share the land and John Wesley Sergeant in 1997 by a Deed of Gift conveyed the same parcel of land to Ruby Sergeant solely. In his will John Wesley Sergeant also directed that his dwelling house be left as a family home to be shared by his children.

2 By Deed of Gift dated March 6, 1997 No. 765 of 1997 John Wesley Sergeant conveyed the land on which the family home is situate to Maurice Sergeant.

3 Winston Sergeant in his claim alleges that John Wesley Sergeant intended to give him the land on which the family house is situated and he informed Maurice Sergeant that if he wanted to keep the land then he had to convey the parcel that was given to him by Deed No. 3296 of 1988 to Winston Sergeant. Maurice Sergeant initially agreed but when the Deed of Transfer was prepared he refused to sign same indicating he wanted to keep his land as described in Deed No. 3296 of 1988 and he would transfer Deed No. 765 of 1997 to Winston Sergeant. This he subsequently refused to do.

4 Winston Sergeant in his claim sought inter alia the following reliefs:

• (1) A Declaration that John Sergeant deceased intended that 4,590 square feet of land described in Deed Number 765 of 1997 be vested in the Claimant.

• (2) A Declaration that the Defendant used undue influence to induce the said John Sergeant now deceased to convey to himself the said 4,590 square feet of land by virtue of Deed of Gift Number 765 of 1997.

• (3) An Order canceling Deed Number 765 of 1997.

Winston Sergeant outlined the particulars of undue influence as follows:

• (a) The deceased John Sergeant was in 1997 an elderly man in his 80's and was at that time suffering from the effects of old age and senility and as such was susceptible to pressures and promises made by the Defendant.

• (b) On the 20^th January 1997 the deceased made his last Will and Testament by which he appointed the Defendant the sole Executor thereof. The original Will was given to the Defendant on the 4^th March 1997 and on the 6^th March 1997 the Defendant caused the deceased to convey the land bearing the family home to the Defendant. A copy of the said Will is exhibited.

• (c) The Defendant promised the deceased that if he was given the property described in Deed Number 765 of 1997 he would transfer to the Claimant the land described in Deed Number 3296 of 1988. This the Claimant contends was a deliberate ploy by the Defendant to deceive the deceased in order to get the land described in Deed Number 765 of 1997.

• (d) The behaviour of the Defendant was most unconscionable since of the eight (8) children of the deceased he alone was given two (2) adjoining lots of land, while the Claimant got none contrary to the intention of the deceased. The remaining six (6) children each got one (1) lot of similar size."

5 Maurice Sergeant in his defence denied the allegation of undue influence and alleged that John Sergeant in executing Deed of Gift No. 765 of 1997 acted freely and fully of his own volition with full knowledge and due consideration of what he was doing and intended to give full force and effect thereto.

ISSUE:

6 The issue to be determined is whether Deed No. 765 of 1997 was executed as a result of undue influence.

SUBMISSIONS:

7 Learned Queen's Counsel for Winston Sergeant after referring the Court to the grounds on which the allegations of undue influence were based referred the Court to the legal principles applicable to the doctrine of undue influence as set out inHalsbury Laws of England 4^th Ed. Volume 18 paragraphs 329–335. Learned Queen's Counsel submitted that in this case undue influence is to be presumed. Learned Queen's Counsel quoted the following excerpt from paragraph 334:

"When The Presumption Arises…What has to be proved to raise the presumption of undue influence is first the making of a substantial gift or the granting of a benefit."

Learned Queen's Counsel further submitted that once the presumption was raised the onus was on Maurice Sergeant to rebut same. Since Maurice Sergeant did not testify at the trial he failed to discharge the onus placed on him and Deed No. 765 of 1997 must be cancelled.

8 Learned Queen's Counsel for Maurice Sergeant submitted that Winston Sergeant is bound by his pleadings. He submitted that the pleaded case of Winston Sergeant is that there was actual undue influence. The onus was on Winston Sergeant to prove actual undue influence. This he failed to do.

EVIDENCE:

9 Winston Sergeant testified on his own behalf and called three witnesses all being his siblings namely Lloyd Sergeant, Muriel Warner and Violet Sergeant. Maurice Sergeant did not testify, in fact he was not present at...