Kenneth Polinere and Others v Lucy Felicien
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hoffmann |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] UKPC J0126-1 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 38 of 1998 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 26 January 2000 |
[2000] UKPC J0126-1
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Clyde
Lord Saville of Newdigate
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Mr. Justice Henry
[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court which held that a gift of land in St. Lucia made in 1978 by the late Merilese Velinor to Kenneth Polinere, Patricia Jules and Lazarus Hyacinth ("the donees") and in respect of which they or their successors in title have been registered proprietors since 1986, was void for non-compliance with the formalities required by certain articles of the St. Lucia Civil Code. The Court of Appeal ordered rectification of the register by deletion of the names of the registered proprietors and the substitution of the personal representatives of Merilese Velinor. The donees or their representatives appeal to the Privy Council.
The facts of the transaction may be shortly stated. By a Deed of Sale dated 14th February 1978, Eva Mongroo and Mary DeFreitas Mongroo, as vendors, conveyed certain land at Derniere Riviere in the Quarter of Dennery, St. Lucia, to the donees, who at the time were all minors, subject to a usufruct in favour of Merilese Velinor. The deed recited that the entire purchase price had been paid out of the separate funds of Merilese Velinor and that she was purchasing on behalf of the donees, who were described as her grandson, granddaughter and nephew respectively. The Deed of Sale was notarially authenticated and duly registered under the system of registration of deeds which then existed. When the Land Registration Act 1984 came into force, the land was registered in the Registration Quarter for Dennery as Block 1642B Parcel No. 1. The donees were registered as joint proprietors and the usufruct in favour of Merilese Velinor was registered as an incumbrance. In 1984 Lazarus Hyacinth died and by a deed of sale dated 25th July 1988 his personal representative sold his share in the land to Patricia Jules for $3,000. She was registered as proprietor of his share (in addition to the share she had originally acquired) on 2nd August 1988.
There appears to have been a family falling out in which Merilese Velinor's daughters Agatha and Lucy took the view that the donees had not shown themselves deserving of the gift. On 28th November 1994 Merilese Velinor, who was said to be over 80 years old but showing no evidence of any serious disturbances of memory or cognitive functioning, issued proceedings claiming that the gift was void or liable to be revoked for ingratitude. The argument for invalidity was based on Articles 696 and 717 of the Civil Code, which read as follows:-
"696. Gift inter vivos is an act by which the donor divests himself, by gratuitous title, of the ownership of a thing, in favour of the donee, whose acceptance is requisite and renders the contract perfect. This acceptance makes it irrevocable …
717. Deeds containing gifts inter vivos must under pain of nullity be executed in notarial form and the original thereof be kept of record. The acceptance must be made in the same form."
The plaintiffs argued that the deed constituted a gift within the meaning of Article 696 which required acceptance and by virtue of Article 717, both gift and acceptance had to be in the form of a notarially authenticated deed. But the donees had never executed such a deed.
The claim to revocation for ingratitude was based on Article 751, which provides that gifts inter vivos accepted are liable to be revoked on various grounds including "ingratitude on the part of the donee". Article 753 states what can amount to ingratitude and includes "refusal to maintain donor, regard being had to the nature of the gift and the circumstances of the parties". The plaintiff alleged that the donees had failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rebecca Rachel Atkinson also called Rebecca Rachael Atkinson (nee Fatal) acting herein and represented by her Attorney Noelita Grant Claimants v 1. Gertrude Mathurin Qua Administratrix of the Estate of the late Vitalienne Wilson also called Vitalienne Mathurin 2. Nathaniel Thomas Attorney by Power of Attorney for Gertrude Mathurin Defendants [ECSC]
...proprietor until her death. [85] Counsel referred the Court to the Privy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1998 from St. Lucia: Kenneth Poliniere et al v Lucy Felicien in which a Deed of Donation was challenged; the Donor sought to have it revoked. Indefeasibility of Title [86] Counsel for the Def......
-
[1] Dr. Martin G.C. Didier [2] Dr. Kannan Mathiprakasam [3] Dr. Guruswamy Ramachandrappa Appellants v Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd Respondent Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd Appellant v [1] Medical Associates Ltd [2] Dr. Martin C Didier [3] Dr. Kannan Mathiprakasam [4] Dr. Guruswamy Ramachandrappa Respondents
...it did not expressly say so – see para. 19 of the judgment. 9 [2003] UKPC 48. 10 [2001] 2 NZLR 298. 11 [2001] 1 All ER 91. 12 [2000] 1 WLR 890. 13 The Doctors state that article 2260 of the Quebec Code is in all material respects pari materia with article 2121(7) of the Civil Code of Sai......
-
Didier et Al v Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd; Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Medical Associates Ltd et Al
...as the cause of action would have only arisen on the negligent treatment of the injured party — Consideration of Poliniere v. Felicien [2000] 1 W.L.R. 890 — Consideration of Law Society v. Sephton & Co (a firm) and others [2006] 2 A.C. 543 — Finding that the tort claim was not struck out o......
-
[1] Marguerite Desir [2] Marguerite Desir (Qua Executrix of the Will of the late Albertha Bella Butcher) Appellants v Sabina James Alcide Respondent [ECSC]
...the common law on undue influence to the facts as found by him, and the appeal against this part of his judgment is dismissed. Polinere and Others v Felicien (2000) 56 WIR 264; Stoneham and Tewkesbury (United Districts) v Ouellet [1979] 2 S.C.R 172; and Archambault v Archambault [1902] AC......