Edwards (Claudette) v Quest Security Services Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: SYKES J
• Judgment Date: 20 September 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 9 JJC 2001
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 20 September 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CIVIL DIVISION

BETWEEN

CLAUDETTE EDWARDS

CLAIMANT

AND

QUEST SECURITY SERVICES LTD

DEFENDANT

IN CHAMBERS

Mr. Rudolph Smellie and Miss Tamika Harris for the claimant

Mr. Jalil Dabdoub instructed by Dabdoub, Dabdoub and Company for the defendant

CONTRACT - Declaration - Striking out

1 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT, DECLARATION, LOCUS STANDI AND APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT CLAIM

SYKES J

2 1. Quest Security Services Limited (Quest) is asking the court to strike out this claim in which Miss Edwards is seeking declarations that the purported amendment of a contract between Quest and Guardian Life Limited (Guardian) is invalid or in the alternative that the purported change of beneficiary by Miss Lettera Thompson was procured by undue influence. Quest says that Miss Edwards is not a party to the contract and therefore cannot bring this or any claim concerning the contract. I should indicate that the claim against Guardian Life Limited, who was named as the second defendant, was struck out on September 9, 2005. I have set out the claim form in its amended form before the striking out of the case against Guardian.

3 THE CONTEXT

4 2. In April 2000, Quest entered into a contract of insurance with Guardian. By that contract, Guardian agreed to provide insurance coverage for the employees of Quest which would become payable on the occurrence of certain events such as death or injury to the employee. Clause 8 of the contract clearly states that the proposer (Quest) should not have any beneficial interest In the policy.

5 3. Quest employed Miss Lettera Thompson. She worked as an office helper. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2003. In February 2005, her health significantly declined to the extent that she was hospitalised on February 5, 2005. At some point on February 5, Miss Lettera Thompson executed a change of beneficiary form naming Quest as the beneficiary. Before this change was effected, Miss Thompson had named Claudette Edwards, the claimant, as the beneficiary. The document is alleged to have been executed at the home of Mr and Mrs Joseph Dibbs, directors of Quest. Miss Thompson died on April 9, 2005.

6 4. Miss Edwards thereafter sought the assistance of counsel who launched this action. It is appropriate to indicate that Mr. Smellie who appeared for the claimant on this application to strike out is appearing in the matter for the first time.

7 THE CLAIM

8 5. After some uncertainty, the claimant finally formulated her claim in which she is seeking the following declarations and orders.

• a. a declaration that the designation and appointment of the proposer, Quest Security Services Limited as the beneficiary under the Group Life Policy GCL 0004 is conflicting (sic) with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy contract;

• b. a declaration that the issuing by Guardian Life Insurance Company Ltd of sums payable upon the death of the insured, Lettera Thompson, to Quest conflicts with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy contract;

• c. an order that the contract of insurance should be specifically performed;

• d. a declaration that the designation and appointment of the proposer, Quest Security Services Limited as the beneficiary under Group Life Policy number GCL 0004 is null and void;

• e. a declaration that the Life Assurance Plan Certificate issued by First Defendant to the Second Defendant is ineffective since it identifies the Second Defendant as the beneficiary under Group Life Policy number GCL 004 (sic) before the change of beneficiary form was allegedly executed by the insured;

• f. an injunction to restrain Guardian Life Insurance Company Limited by its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from issuing any sum payable upon the death of Ms. Lettera Thompson, under Group Life Assurance Policy number GCL 0004 to Quest Security Services Limited;

• g. Costs;

• h. Such further relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

9 6. In respect of the claim based on undue influence the claimant seeks the following declarations:

• a. a declaration that Quest Security Services Limited is not entitled to any beneficial interest in the insurance policy number GCL 0004 of Ms Lettera Thompson, late of 7 Moresham Avenue, Kingston 10 in the parish of St. Andrew;

• b. a declaration that the designation and appointment of Quest Security Services Limited as the beneficiary under Group Life Policy number 0004 is null and void;

• c. an injunction to restrain Guardian Life Insurance Company Limited by its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from issuing any sum payable upon the death of Ms. Lettera Thompson, under Group Life Assurance Policy number GCL 0004 to Quest Security Services Limited

• d. Costs;

• e. Such further relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

10 7. The particulars of claim have not identified the person or persons whose conduct is to be attributed to Quest. This is not an insurmountable difficulty and can be solved by ordering the claimant to provide further information pursuant to rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Despite this defect, the gist of the claim amounts to this:

• a. Miss Lettera Thompson was an unsophisticated woman - an office helper;

• b. she was diagnosed with leukaemia - a potentially fatal illness;

• c. she was subservient to her employer;

• d. she reposed trust and confidence in her employer;

• e. she was in deteriorating health in February 2005 to the point where she was hospitalised;

• f. at some point on February 5, 2005, she found herself at the private residence of Mr and Mrs Dibbs, directors of Quest;

• g. it was at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dibbs that the change of beneficiary form was executed.

11 QUEST'S APPLICATION

12 8. Quest's application is grounded in rule 26.3(1) (c) of CPR. Mr. Dabdoub submitted that the claim as framed does not disclose any reasonable grounds for the claim and should be struck or alternatively, the claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court under the inherent power of the court. Mr. Dabdoub vigorously submits that Miss Edwards has no standing to bring this action because she is not a party to the contract between Quest and Guardian. In support of his submissions, he relies on Denbow, Claude, Life Insurance Law in the Commonwealth Caribbean, 1984 (Butterworths) at 112, 113 and 118, Beswick v Beswick [1968] A.C. 58 and Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] 1 Q.B. 147, National Commercial Bank (Jamaica) Ltd. v Raymond Hew and Clifton Hew (2003) 63 W.I.R. 183 and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No. 2) [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1021. The cases and text, submits Mr. Dabdoub, support the contention that only parties to the contract can sue on it. He said that Miss Thompson, were she alive, could not sue or enforce any provisions of the policy because of her lack of privity, therefore Miss Edwards cannot be in a better position that her.

13 9. Mr. Dabdoub went as far as suggesting that even if he accepted that Miss Thompson were the victim of undue influence when she signed the form or worse, her signature was forged, no non-party to the contract could do anything about it except, possibly, the personal representatives of the deceased's estate.

14 THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES

15 10. Rule 26.3(l)(c) of the CPR states that court may strike out a statement of case or part of a...