Anthony v Anthony

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1978
• Neutral Citation: AG 1978 HC 15
• Docket Number: 31 of 1976
• Date: 04 May 1978

High Court

Bishop, J.

31 of 1976

Anthony

and

Anthony

Time H. Kendall for plaintiff.

Bernice V. Lake for defendant.

Damages - Damage to property and removal of parts of dwelling house and fence — Quantum.

Bishop, J

1 This summons is consequent upon an Order made on the 10 ^th December 1975 by Hewlett, J. The Order was made by consent of the parties and that part which is relevant to the matter now before me reads as follows:

“BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED

• (1) That the defendant do keep the furniture in the house as of the 10 ^th December 1975;

• (2) That the house and land be the property of the plaintiff absolutely;

• (3) That the plaintiff pays to the defendant $2,200.00 as her share of the said property on or before the 30 ^th January, 1976;

• (4) That the defendant occupy the property until payment of the sum due to vacate the said property within two weeks of payment of the said sum. And that payment is to be made in one lump sum.”

2 I believe that it was the intention that the defendant would deliver up the property to the plaintiff and not simply vacate it when the money was paid over to her.

3 Charity Anthony admitted that she received the amount of $2,200.00 as her share of the property; and she did not deny that the plaintiff paid her — through her solicitor — on the 31 ^st December 1975. It was agreed that Charity Anthony left the property on the 15 ^th January 1976, and there was no dispute that she kept the furniture which was in the house, as of 10 ^th December 1975.

4 The summons before me has asked that the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff compensation for damage to the property, which is located at Old Road, and for the removal of parts of the dwelling house and the fence around it.

5 The evidence on which I have been asked to determine the issues was contained, on the one hand, in the affidavit of the applicant and the oral testimony of two witnesses, and on the other hand in the affidavit o the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent indicated that she did not wish to cross examine the applicant on any of the facts set out in his affidavit or for any other purpose; but she cross examined his witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant cross examined the respondent.

6 Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Steadman Anthony revealed the particulars of special damage suffered and while none of the items was challenged or denied by cross examination, Charity Anthony in her affidavit and her testimony under cross examination, challenged and denied some of the items.

7 It must have been in the contemplation of the parties that (a) the plaintiff would pay the $2,200.00 to the defendant's solicitor who would then pay it to the defendant, and (b) the defendant would hand over the keys of the house either to her solicitor or to the plaintiff's solicitor, and such solicitor would ensure the hand over to the plaintiff of the property. While the plaintiff did as contemplated the defendant did not do so. She handed the keys to a policeman — P.C. Benn — at the house at Old Road; and she did so in the absence of both solicitors and of the...