Green v Green
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] UKPC 39 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 4 of 2002 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 20 May 2003 |
[2003] UKPC 39
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Steyn
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Millett
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]
When the appellant, Roy Green, and the respondent, Vivia Green, first met in 1972 they were each married to someone else. They formed a relationship and in 1973 decided to live together as man and wife. It was not until some years later that they were free to marry each other. The respondent was divorced from her first husband in 1980, but it was not until 1983 that the appellant was divorced from his first wife. In the meantime they had two daughters, Tanya and Teresa, who were born in 1973 and 1975. They were married in 1984, but not long afterwards things changed and their relationship started to deteriorate. In 1987 the appellant left the matrimonial home, and in 1990 the respondent left Jamaica and went to live in the United States of America. Two years later, in November 1992, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in which he sought a declaration that he was entitled to one-half of the equity in the property which had been acquired by the parties during the period of their relationship.
The case went to trial before Orr J in November 1995. It lasted for eleven days, during which evidence was led from both parties and several other witnesses. On 15 May 1997 the judge gave judgment in the appellant's favour, although he assessed the respective interests of the parties in their various assets at one-third to the appellant and two-thirds to the respondent. He also restricted his order to the assets of the parties in Jamaica, as he excluded property which the respondent has purchased in the United States of America. The appellant was content with that result, but the respondent was not. She appealed against the judge's order, and on 31 July 2000 the Court of Appeal (Downer, Harrison and Panton JJA) allowed her appeal. The judgment of Orr J was set aside. It was declared that the appellant was entitled to a one-third interest in one property only (Governor's Pen, St Mary) and that he had no interest in any of the remaining properties. It is against that judgment that the appellant has now appealed to their Lordships Board.
During the period from 1973 to the date of the separation the parties acquired three business enterprises and seven business and residential properties. Of the seven properties, the titles to five of them were registered in the name of the respondent, one was registered in joint names (Governor's Pen, St Mary) and no title was produced for another (Marine Park, St Catherine). The businesses have all now been closed and all the residential properties sold, except for two apartments (at Oakland Court, St Andrew). The following summary provides a brief inventory of these various assets.
In 1973 the parties purchased a small supermarket business at Carpenters Road and East Road, St Andrew. This was, as the judge held, the genesis for the acquisition of all the other assets. In 1975 two dwelling houses were purchased. One was a three bedroom house at Marine Park, St Catherine. The other was a two bedroom house at Donmair Drive, St Andrew. The house at Donmair Drive was later improved by adding two further bedrooms and a car porte. The appellant said that the title to the house at Marine Park was registered in his name, but the title was not produced. The title to the house at Donmair Drive was registered in the name of the respondent. In 1977 the business at Carpenters Road and East Road was sold. A supermarket and garment store at Pembroke Hall, St Andrew was bought with the proceeds. The title to this property was registered in the name of the respondent. In 1980 a larger dwelling house at 27 Wiltshire Avenue, Barbican was purchased. It too was registered in the respondent's name. It became the family home, and the parties lived there together until they separated. In the same year an area of land was bought at Governor's Pen, St Mary, the title to which was taken in joint names. In 1981 a self-service supermarket was purchased at Papine, but everything there was lost in 1988 when the business was looted after the building was destroyed in a hurricane. In 1984 a supermarket and wholesale business at Stony Hill, St Andrew was purchased. The title to this property was registered in the respondent's name. In the same year two apartments at Oakland Court, Constant Spring Road, St Andrew were purchased. They too were registered in the name of the respondent.
Throughout the parties' relationship the appellant was employed full-time as a supervisor in the construction industry. The respondent handled their finances and was responsible for the day to day operation of the various business enterprises. As so often happens in cases of this kind, they got on with their busy lives without much thought for the future. No agreement was made as to how the beneficial interests in the various properties were to be divided up between them. This is the background against which the judge was asked to decide what part the appellant played in the acquisition of the assets in which he was claiming a share of the equity.
The appellant's case was that neither of the parties had much in the way of money in 1973 when they started up in business in a small way, and that among the assets used for this purpose was a sum which he contributed from the proceeds of the sale of his motor car. He said that the subsequent purchases were made as a result of their joint efforts in the business, to whose success they had each in their different ways contributed. The respondent remained on the premises and supervised the operations there. He had enough time off during the day from his employment in the construction industry to search for, collect and deliver to the premises goods which were to be offered for sale in the supermarket, and he was able to work there each day from about 4.00 pm until closing time. Their intended marriage was their number one priority, and everything they did was directed to that aim. The respondent's case was that all the business enterprises and properties were acquired from her own savings and her own efforts except for the house at Marine Park, for which the appellant paid the deposit and the instalments due on the mortgage. But he was unable to maintain these payments, so she gave him a substantial sum from her own savings to pay off all the arrears. She said that she was assisted in the running of the businesses by her mother and her brothers, and that she maintained the premises at Marine Park, paid for the additions which the appellant made to the house at Wiltshire Avenue and provided the money for the construction of buildings at Governor's Pen all from her own resources including the assets generated as result of her own efforts by the various businesses.
The judge held that the beneficial interest in the house at Marine Park was held in equal shares by both parties and that this was the case too at Governor's Pen. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the appellant contributed to the acquisition of the business at Carpenters Road and East Road from the proceeds of the sale of his motor car. The judge held on a balance of probabilities that he did not do so. But he found that, although the appellant made no initial contribution, he did contribute directly and indirectly to the operation of the various businesses. He said that the appellant had overstated the extent of his contribution having regard to his earnings and his other commitments to his family. But he held that he was able to work for reward outside his employment by virtue of his position as a supervisor. He summed the matter up in these words:
"I find that he was not a mere purveyor of goods for the various businesses nor a handyman and a mere supervisor of repairs and refurbishing of the houses. I find that he was a partner in the acquisitions, that he left the handling of the finances to the defendant and that this was not due to an acceptance of her role as the sole owner but because of her capacity in this regard. I infer that there was a common intention between the parties from the outset for the acquisition of the business at Carpenters Road and East Road that both should share the beneficial interest and in all subsequent acquisitions."
The judge also accepted the appellant's explanation for the fact that the title to so many of the properties was taken in the respondent's name. He said that when the house at Donmair Drive was purchased she was concerned that, as they were not married, if anything was to happen to him his family would deprive her of everything. So he allowed her to purchase in whatever name she chose. He said that he knew that they would be getting married and that "everything would be Green and Green as she wanted", so he told her she could do all the signing. The judge's conclusion was that the respondent was ingenuous. He found that he refrained from having his name placed on the relevant documents because he acted in the belief that everything belonged to both of them.
The judge ordered an account to be taken of all the sums received by the respondent pursuant to the sale of the properties at Donmair Drive, Wiltshire Avenue, Governor's Pen and Stony Hill, and he declared that the appellant was entitled to payment of one-third of the proceeds of the sale of those properties, to one third of the equity at Oakland Court and to the payment of one-third of the amounts in the names of the respondent and others in various bank accounts.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Harrison JA. He referred to the judge's finding that there was a common intention between the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carty (Leonard) v Merline Carty
... ... Guidance of the approach of the appellate court as to reviewing the decision of the judge at first instance, is provided in Roy Green v Vivia Green (Privy Council Appeal No. 4 of 2002) delivered on the 20 th May, 2003. It is at paragraph 13 and 14 of that judgment and is as ... ...
-
Lyons, Josephine v Vernon Lyons
...of cases including Gissing v. Gissing [1971] A.C. 886, Grant v. Edwards [1986] Ch. 638, Azan v Azan 25 J.L.R 301, and Green v. Green , Privy Council Appeal No. 4 of 2002. 43 39. "The question in all these cases is whether a common intention can be inferred from the parties' words or conduc......
-
Chin (Lascelles A.) v Chin (Audrey Ramona)
...were relied on by the respondent, namely, Industrial Chemical Co. (3a.) Ltd. v Owen Ellis (1986) 35. W.I.R. 323; and Green v Green P.C. Appeal No. 4 of 2002 (May 20, 2003). 95 Conclusion 96 To sum up the matter, the learned trial judge, in my view, correctly held that the company Lasco Food......
- Stack v Dowden