Haughton v Haughton & others
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Sykes J , Sykes J (Ag) |
| Judgment Date | 08 April 2005 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2005] 4 JJC 0802 |
| Date | 08 April 2005 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN EQUITY
REAL PROPERTY - Transfer of land - Application to set aside - Undue influence - Registration of Titles Act, s. 161 -
UNDUE INFLUENCE AND SECTION 161 OF THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES ACT
1. The Haughton brothers fear that their sister, Miss Yvonne Haughton, by undue influence procured a transfer of land to her by their father, Mr. Alexander Haughton. They have filed Claim No E 476/2001 making this allegation. They wish to have the transaction set aside. Miss Haughton, who has failed to comply with orders of Sinclair-Haynes 3 (Ag) made at a case management conference on December 11, 2003, has applied to have this matter struck out on the basis that section 161 of the Registration of Titles Act bars this action unless fraud can be proven and on the basis that the claimants' statement of case do not disclose any case of fraud. She also seeks judgment in Suit No. HCV 1445/2003 in which she is claiming recovery of possession from her brothers and mesne profits from Cynthia Rainford, the third defendant in Claim No. HCV 1445/2003. The basis of her claim is that she is the registered proprietor of the property in question that is registered at Volume 1104 Folio 838 of the Register Book of Titles. The land is also known as Lot 50 Gibraltar Estate, Annotto Bay, St. Mary. The brothers are in possession of the land and Miss Rainford lives on the property.
2. Among the orders made by Her Ladyship was an order for disclosure of documents including the agreement for sale, transfer document, receipt(s) or other evidence of payment. The deadline for this was March 31, 2004. Her Ladyship also ordered that witness statements or affidavits be filed and served on or before May 14, 2004. Only the Haughton brothers have complied with the orders. There has been no explanation for Miss Haughton's failure to comply with the case management order and neither is there an application for relief from sanctions. I should point out that I have before me the witness statements of the claimants in Claim No E 476/2001, the claim alleging that the deceased made the transfer while the deceased was subject to the undue influence of Miss Haughton.
3. Both suits were consolidated during the same case management conference to which reference has already been made.
The Facts
4. Mr. Alexander Haughton was the registered proprietor of land mentioned in paragraph one. He had a wife and a number of children including Lloyd Haughton, Henry Haughton and Yvonne Haughton.
5. Miss Haughton has been living in the United States of America for sometime. She visits Jamaica from time to time. It appears that Mr. Alexander Haughton reposed great trust and confidence in her.
6. An examination of the title shows that on January 21, 1997, Miss Yvonne Haughton was registered as the new proprietor. The endorsement shows that she paid $750,000 for the land. Mr. Haughton died on March 11, 2000.
7. Mr. Haughton had made a will in July 1999. In that will, he left the property to all his children including Miss Haughton and her brothers after giving his wife a life interest. The brothers only knew about the transfer when they were administering his estate and made enquiries about the title. It was at that time they discovered that the land was disposed of to their sister.
8. The other important facts are:
-
(a) Mr. Haughton had the land valued in July 1996.
-
(b) The land was valued at $1,200,000.
-
(c) Mr. Haughton was illiterate.
-
(d) In 1983, the deceased wrote a will that he was about to post to Miss Haughton who was living overseas. She arrived shortly after it was completed. The will was retrieved from the mail by the deceased and destroyed.
-
(e) The deceased at some point gave the land title to one Aunt Elsada.
-
(f) Apparently around 1996/97, the deceased was told by Aunt Elsada that Miss Haughton had his important documents including the land title. Aunt Elsada died in 1999.
-
(g) The deceased did not ask for the documents until the day after Aunt Elsada's death. He asked his daughter for the title. She denied taking them from Aunt Elsada.
-
(h) There is no clear evidence indicating who had the title after Aunt Elsada died.
-
(i) The deceased drafted his second will mentioned in paragraph seven.
-
(j) Since at least 1996, the deceased was suffering from diabetes, hypertension, glaucoma and cataract.
-
(k) At the time of the transfer to Miss Haughton, the deceased was in need of money.
-
(l) The transfer was prepared by Pollard, Lee, Clarke & Company
9. These are the bare facts upon which the Haughton's rest their case. Mr. Forsythe says that this does not amount to fraud for the purposes of the Registration of Titles Act. This submission overlooks that point of this claim. It is a claim against Miss Haughton arising in equity. The claimants' are really alleging that there was undue influence. As I hope to show, this type of claim has nothing to do with the indefeasibility of the title.
The law
10. It is well established that equity will intervene in transactions that are the product of undue influence. i.e. a transaction that has occurred in circumstance where the will of one party has been overwhelmed by the other to the extent that it cannot be said that the victim acted freely and voluntarily. The purpose of the intervention is to protect persons from being victimised by others in whom they repose trust and confidence. It seeks to correct abuses of confidence (see Billage v Southee 58 ER 623, 626 and Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch. 145, 182 – 183, National Commercial Bank (Jamaica) Ltd. v Raymond Hew and Clifton Hew (2003) 63 W.I.R. 183 per Lord Millett at para. 29 and 30 )). The intervention is not to protect persons from their foolishness and the horrors of improvident transactions since they have the freedom to act in any way they wish - including the freedom to be foolish.
11. Ever since Allcard , the law has developed to two classes of cases of undue influence. They are (a) actual undue influence and (b) presumed undue influence. However, there is no difference between the two types of undue influence other than in the nature of the proof. Undue influence may arise "whenever one party occupies or assumes towards another a position naturally involving an ascendancy or influence over that other, or a dependence or trust on his part" (see Dixon J Johnson v Buttress [1936] 56 C.L.R. 113, 135 ). In cases of actual undue influence, there is evidence of how the state of mind of the victim was produced. Once there is evidence of actual undue influence, there is no need to have resort to the second category. In the second class, there is, often times a paucity of direct evidence of how the agreement or consent of the victim was obtained. Proof of undue influence in this class is more in the nature of an inference following upon proof of certain facts. Proof of certain kinds of relationships which the law recognises, from experience, are more susceptible to abuse can be used to ground the inference. These relationships include but are not limited to solicitor/client, physician/patient, trustee/cestuique trust, parent/child. In these kinds of relationships the inference is easily drawn because the nature of the relationship is such that it can be the "source of power to practice such domination" (see Dixon J in Johnson , 134). Also, when dealing with the second class of undue influence there is usually some other objective fact regarding the transaction that calls for an explanation. For example, it may be to the clear disadvantage of the victim.
12. The difficulty, in many cases in the second category, is proving that the influence generated by the relationship has been abused. This is particularly acute when one or both of the original parties to the transaction have died. To deal with this difficulty, the cases show that there are certain objective facts that assist the court in determining whether a case of undue influence has been established. I must stress that the presence of any or all of these objective facts do not lead to an automatic conclusion that there was undue influence. What they do is provide sign posts that enable the court to decide whether there was undue influence. The person relying on undue influence must establish that there was a relationship between the dominant party and victim that was of such a nature and quality that it can be said to be the source of the undue influence.
13. Some of the objective facts the courts look at are:
-
(a) the age of the victim;
-
(b) his level of literacy;
-
(c) his standard of intelligence;
-
(d) the nature of his character (excitable, intemperate or stoic etc);
-
(e) his general state of health;
-
(f) his experience in business;
-
(g) his financial circumstances at the time of the transaction;
-
(h) the nature and duration of the relationship between the parties;
-
(i) whether the transaction is to the manifest disadvantage of the person;
-
(j) the transaction does not make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bay View Proprietors Claimant v [1] Phillipe Chalano [2] Nicole Chalano (both of Hophil SA, 11 Rue Biger 97200, Fort de France, Martinique) Defendants [ECSC]
... ... InHaughton and Haughton Executors of the estate of Alexander Haughton v Yvonne Haughton G476/2001/ and HCV1445/2003 ... ...