Stoeckert v Geddes (Executrix of the estate of Paul Geddes) (No.2)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Judge: N. E. McINTOSH, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2001
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2001] 8 JJC 2301
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. E86/2000
• Date: 23 August 2001

BETWEEN

MARGIE GEDDES (Executrix of the Estate of Paul Geddes)

PLAINTIFF

AND

HELGA STOECKERT

DEFENDANT

SUIT NO. E86/2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN EQUITY

PROBATE - Declaration - Whether estate entitled to monetary balance held jointly in account

N. E. McINTOSH, J

1 Mrs. Margie Geddes, in her capacity as Executrix of the estate of Paul Geddes seeks a declaration that the estate is entitled to the balance in any accounts held in the names of Paul Geddes and Helga Stoeckert, at the Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. in London England (property, the Royal Bank of Canada, Europe Ltd.) In essence, that is the prayer contained in her Originating Summons dated March 7, 2000.

2 The balance in this bank account, numbered 512-300- 5 (or 512-330-5) was part of the assets of Mr. Geddes in 1992 when, by Writ of Summons dated January 28, 1992 Miss Stoeckert sought declarations that:-

• a. she was entitled to one half (or such other proportion) of the sums representing the balances in all the Bank accounts held in the joint names of Helga Stoeckert and Paul Geddes as of the 10 ^th day of April, 1991 and

• b. Paul Geddes was trustee for Helga Stoeckert of 50% or such other proportion as the court deemed just of all assets, property acquired by or in the name of Paul Geddes, during the period of 1963 to 1991 or during such period as the court deemed just.

  Clarke J. presided at the trial of that action in October, 1995 and in his written judgment delivered on December 19, 1995 he expressed certain findings of fact one of which has a particular bearing on the application before this court, namely his finding that

  "......between 1983 and about 1989 he (referring to Mr. Geddes) established respectively in their joint names for their benefit and not for convenience three not insubstantial bank accounts of interest bearing status, namely in Royal Bank of Canada, Europe Limited, in London, England........" (emphasis mine)

3 His Lordship continued

"On those facts I find that there was an express oral agreement as contended for by Mr. Miller. Those facts are, in my view, of great cumulative force. When taken together, as they must in the circumstances of this case, they provide, in my opinion, sufficient direct evidence of the oral agreement pleaded by Miss Stoeckert of a common intention -between herself and Mr. Geddes that both would have beneficial interests in the assets vested in him."

He went on to say

"In equity, common intention alone will not suffice: the plaintiff must also prove that she acted to her detriment in the reasonable belief that by so acting she was acquiring a beneficial interest in the defendant's assets. She has to manifest a link between the common intention and the actions relied on as a detriment."

4 After an examination of Miss. Stoeckert's evidence which he accepted as true he concluded as follows:-

5 "Miss Stoeckert has therefore, in my opinion, shown the vital link between the common intention and the actions relied on as a detriment. I am satisfied that she did act to her detriment on the faith of the common intention between her and Mr. Geddes that she was to have a beneficial interest in his assets. Accordingly she has satisfied the condition for the creation of a trust in her favour in the assets of Mr. Geddes as they existed down to 16 ^th April, 1991. Those assets are trust property"

6 His Lordship then quantified Miss Stoeckert's share in the assets and expressed it thus:-

"I therefore make this binding declaration of right that Miss Stoeckert is entitled to one sixth (1/6) share of the value of Mr. Geddes' assets as at 16 ^th April 1991 and that he accordingly holds the said share upon trust for her."

7 He then identified the assets which were subject to the trust and said:-

"... included are the............bank accounts held abroad in the joint names of the parties..."

8 So it was that the bank accounts held in the joint names of Helga Stoeckert and Paul Geddes, including the account held at the Royal Bank of Canada, Europe Limited, in London, England, came to be placed in the melting pot with all the other assets and one single declaration was made awarding to Miss Stoeckert a one-sixth share of the combined assets although she had sought a separate declaration for her interest in the joint bank accounts.

9 In February, 1997, the matter went before the Court of Appeal at the instance of Mr. Geddes. The prayer was that the judgment of Clarke J. be set aside and that judgment be entered for the appellant, Paul Geddes.

10 After reviewing the record of the evidence at first instance and the findings and conclusions of the learned trial judge as expressed in his written judgment, the Court of Appeal concluded that

"the evidence disclosed no basis upon which the learned trial judge could properly have concluded, as he did, that Miss Stoeckert was beneficially entitled to a proportion of the assets of which Mr. Geddes is the legal owner."

11 Their Lordships then allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of Clarke J. entering in its stead judgment for the appellant Paul Geddes. The effect of their Lordships' judgment was therefore to confirm that both the legal and beneficial interest in all the assets to which Clarke J's judgment applied vested in Mr. Geddes. Since those assets were held to include the overseas joint bank accounts it followed that Miss Stoeckert was adjudged to have no beneficial interest in the balances standing to the credit of those accounts.

12 That decision was appealed in 1998 as Miss Stoeckert sought to have the decision of Clarke J. restored by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, in a judgment delivered on December 13, 1999, by Lord Saville of Newdigate, their Lordships' Board upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal stating that:

"no agreement arrangement understanding or common intention that Helga Stoeckert should have a beneficial share in Mr.

Geddes' assets can be spelt out of the facts and matters relied upon by the judge, whether viewed separately or cumulatively."

13 After receiving the Privy Council's judgment, Miss Stoeckert's Attorneys-at-law had wasted no time in giving instructions to the Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) for the release of the funds held in the account, to their client. The instructions were contained in a letter dated January 6, 2000 and were based on her attorneys' interpretation of the judgment. Particular reference was made to page 6 of the judgment as supportive of the interpretation that Miss Stoeckert was now entitled to the balance held in the said account.

14 At page 6 their Lordships had said:

"The gift of shares in Desnoes and Geddes Ltd. and the establishment of joint accounts again are not matters that suggest that Helga Stoeckert was or was to be the beneficial owner of a share in Mr. Geddes' assets..

........these actions showed that when Mr. Geddes wanted to provide for Helga Stoeckert he made her an outright gift or facilitated her ability to draw on some but by no means all of his accounts."

15 This was the view expressed by Rattray P. in his judgment and their Lordships of the Privy Council expressed their agreement with his reasoning.

16 The Bank was quite prepared to act on the instructions of Miss Stoeckert's attorneys and on January 17...