Stoeckert v Geddes (Executrix of the estate of Paul Geddes) (No.2)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hoffmann |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKPC 54 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 56 of 2003 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 14 December 2004 |
[2004] UKPC 54
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]
For some thirty years the appellant Ms Stoeckert had a relationship with the late Mr Paul Geddes and for much of that time they lived together as man and wife. In 1991 Mr Geddes terminated the relationship and in 1992 Ms Stoeckert commenced proceedings against him claiming various declarations and related orders. The first was a declaration that she was?
"entitled to one half (or such other proportion) of the sum representing the balances in all the bank accounts held in the joint names of [herself] and the defendant as of 16th April 1991."
Another claim was for a declaration that Mr Geddes was trustee for Ms Stoeckert for 50% "or such other proportion as the court deems just" of "all property acquired by the defendant [between] 1963 and 1991".
There was a trial before Clarke J in 1995. The judge said that the evidence of Ms Stoeckert, which was uncontradicted, justified the conclusion that the parties had evinced a common intention that she was to have a beneficial interest in the assets of Mr Geddes. One of the matters upon which he relied was that Mr Geddes had added her name as a joint party with unlimited drawing rights to the bank accounts in which she was claiming a beneficial interest (which were all with overseas banks) and had done so "for their benefit and not for convenience". The common intention, in the judge's opinion, was that Ms Stoeckert should share half the assets equally with Mr Geddes's two daughters. He therefore declared that she was entitled to one-sixth of the assets of Mr Geddes as they stood on 16 April 1991. In so doing, he said expressly that "bank accounts held abroad in the joint names of the parties" were to be included in the assets in which she was to have a one-sixth share.
Mr Geddes appealed and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (Rattray P and Gordon and Bingham JJA) in February 1997. Judgment was delivered in June 1997. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered judgment for the defendant, dismissing the whole of Ms Stoeckert's claim. Rattray P did not regard the addition of Ms Stoeckert's name to the bank accounts as indicative of an intention that she should have a beneficial interest either in the money in the accounts or the general assets of Mr Geddes:
"… the addition of her name as a signatory to his bank accounts abroad only evidences his facilitation of her ability to access those accounts whenever she was overseas and she so desired."
In other words, so long as Mr Geddes allowed the arrangement to continue, Ms Stoeckert had the power to draw on the accounts for whatever she wanted. But that did not give her a beneficial interest in the undrawn funds so as to prevent Mr Geddes from revoking the power.
Gordon JA recorded the reliance by the judge upon the putting of the bank accounts in joint names as an item of evidence of a common intention to confer upon Ms Stoeckert a beneficial interest in Mr Geddes's assets and reached the conclusion that there was no such intention. He did not refer specifically to the beneficial interest in the bank accounts but appears to have regarded them as subsumed under his treatment of the assets in general. Bingham JA, on the other hand, did refer expressly to the beneficial interests in the accounts. Under the heading "The Overseas Bank Accounts" he said that Ms Stoeckert "sought to lay claim" to a half share in these accounts. He recorded the argument on behalf of Mr Geddes that as he and Ms Stoeckert were not married, there was no presumption of advancement in her favour. In the end, however, Bingham JA did not deal separately with the ownership of the accounts but concurred with the President and Gordon JA in setting aside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v National Commercial Bank Jamaica et Al
...Smith-Jordan (1970) 15 WIR 522, Anthony Papouis v Valerie Gibson-West [2004] EWHC 396 (Ch) and Helga Stoeckert v Margie Geddes (No 2) [2004] UKPC 54. The law 27 There are certain well established principles which will assist in the analysis of the issues raised in this case. The major ones ......
-
Clover Robinson v National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd and Others
...Smith-Jordan (1970) 15 WIR 522, Anthony Papouis v Valerie Gibson-West [2004] EWHC 396 (Ch) and Helga Stoeckert v Margie Geddes (No 2) [2004] UKPC 54. The law 27 There are certain well established principles which will assist in the analysis of the issues raised in this case. The major ones ......
-
Matrimonial Property
...and Lynch v Lynch (1991) 28 JLR 8.22. Lynch v Lynch, Jones v Maynard [1951] 1 All ER 802 and Re Bishop deceased [1965] 1 All ER 249.23. [2004]UKPC 54. Family Law in Jamaica 184e Presumption of AdvancementThe presumption of advancement as applied in Jamaica was an important tool used to ass......
-
Family Law: The Courts
...to have family specialists presiding in these matters so that time and expense is saved.27. [2001]UKPC 7; [2007]UKPC 5.28. [1999]UKPC 52; [2004]UKPC 54.29. Wills v Wills (2003) 64 WIR...