Hanley v Martin

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Mitchell, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: AG 2002 HC 28
• Docket Number: ANUHCV 0189 of 1995
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Date: 16 September 2002

High Court

Mitchell, J.

ANUHCV 0189 of 1995

Hanley

and

Martin

Appearances:

Charlesworth OD Brown for the claimant.

Eleanor R Clarke for the defendant.

Tort - Professional negligence — Construction of house — Defendant counterclaimed for professional negligence against the claimant — Faulty work in supervising construction of defendant's home — Whether on a balance of probabilities the defects were done under the watch of the claimant and were properly considered the fault or responsibility of the claimant — Counterclaim dismissed.

Family law - Constructive trust — Claimant claimed an equitable interest under a constructive trust — Claimant claimed he put a substantial value into the construction of the home of the defendant which had been intended to be their matrimonial home — Whether the defendant held legal title to the property on a constructive or resulting trust for the use and benefit of the two parties — Judgment that the defendant exploited the relationship with the claimant to take advantage of his access to free equipment and materials — Defendant never intended the relationship to develop further or for her to share her life or property with the claimant — Claim dismissed.

Mitchell, J.

1 This was a hybrid sort of case. So far as the claimant was concerned it was a claim for an equitable interest under a constructive trust arising as a result of his having put a substantial value into the construction of the home of the defendant, his ex-fiancÉe, which had been intended to be their matrimonial home. So far as the defendant was concerned it was a straightforward case of her counterclaim for professional negligence against the claimant engineer for his faulty work in supervising the construction of her home. Indeed, it may be said to have been two entirely different cases based on much the same evidence.

2 The case began with the issue on 24 May 1995 of a specially endorsed writ issued at the request of the claimant against the defendant. The claim was that in about the year 1991 the claimant and the defendant renewed an intimate relationship which ripened into the contemplation of marriage and in about August 1993 to their engagement to be married, the marriage date being set for June 1994. The claim was that in about July 1992 the parties discussed the construction of their matrimonial home on lands of the defendant situate at Belle View by pooling their resources and income and that the claimant would as a result have a beneficial half-share in the matrimonial property. The claimant claimed that he arranged for an architect to complete the plans at a minimal charge of $3,160.00, instead of the actual cost of $48,680.00, by way of an intended gift to the claimant as a result of the close friendship between the two of them. The claim was that the true construction cost was $788,000.00, but the bill of quantities was prepared to reflect a construction cost of $375,000.00, as the claimant intended to make and did make significant cost-savings as a result of his position at Public Works Department which gave him access, with the consent of the appropriate authorities, to the use of heavy duty equipment, marl, all-in, stone and water, free of cost. Further reduction in costs was to be secured by the claimant providing the engineering services and supervising the project. The claim was that the building commenced in February 1994 and proceeded, with the cost of labour being met primarily by the defendant and the cost of materials being met by both parties. The building agreement was executed on 8 May 1994 between the parties as owner and one Foster Cornelius as builder. The defendant wrongfully and in breach of her agreement with the claimant made application to her employer, the Bank of Nova Scotia, for a loan in her name alone to pay for the construction of the home, despite her assurances to the claimant that the loan application was in both of their names. In July 1994, when the construction had reached the stage of the ring beam, problems arose when the father of the defendant countermanded the instructions given by the claimant to the builder. The defendant supported her father in the dispute, and the claimant considered that the trust and confidence that formed the substratum of the agreement between the parties was destroyed. The claimant requested reimbursement of $180,604.57 that he calculated was the value of his input into the construction project to that point. The claim was that the defendant had, by her representations to the claimant, induced him to make substantial direct and indirect contributions to the acquisition of the matrimonial home. Alternatively, the claim was that the defendant had fraudulently misrepresented that she had made application for the loan in their joint names. The claim was that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by the contributions of the claimant in the total sum of $173,581.56. The claimant claimed;

• (1) a declaration that he was beneficially entitled to a share and interest in the property registered as Registration Section Central Block 14 2288A, Parcel 30;

• (2) a declaration that she held the title to the property on a constructive trust for the use and benefit of the two of them in equal shares;

• (3) alternatively, a declaration that the claimant's substantial contribution to the acquisition of the intended matrimonial home constituted an unjust enrichment to the defendant;

• (4) an order that the defendant repay $173,581.56 together with interest thereon at the bank's current rate from 18 July 1994 to date of payment;

• (5) alternatively, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation together with interest;

• (6) an order that the property be sold and the proceeds of sale applied in satisfaction of the claimant's entitlement after liquidation of the bank loan;

• (7) costs;

• (8) further or other relief.

3 On 27 July 1995, the defence and counterclaim was filed. In it, the defendant denied all the allegations of the claimant. She claimed that she had been introduced to the architect by the assistant manager credit at the Bank of Nova Scotia, and he had prepared the plans for her and charged her a fee of $3,156.00. The claim was that the claimant had offered to provide engineering services a well as supervision of the project as a gift to the defendant. She had never agreed with the claimant to make an application in their joint names for the bank loan. She made the arrangements to pay for materials and labour and she paid for them all out of her own funds. She agreed that her father, a builder of over 45 years' experience, had disagreements with the claimant about certain aspects of the construction of her home, but she denied having made any fraudulent misrepresentation or having been unjustly enriched. She counterclaimed conditionally for damages for the negligent supervision by the claimant of the construction of her home. Her claim was that if, which she denied, there had been a contract between the two of them for the claimant to provide engineering services and supervision, then it was an implied term that he would exercise reasonable care and skill in providing these services, and he had failed to do so, causing her loss and damage. In particular, she claimed he had negligently allowed the contractors to disregard the working drawings; he had installed beams that were inadequate for the purpose for which they were intended; he had negligently allowed footings for columns that were inadequately sized to be constructed and placed at too shallow a depth; he had negligently allowed the wall of the basement to be constructed without external water-proofing; he had provided inadequate reinforcement for the cistern. She claimed $59,902.69 as the expenses and costs of remedial work that had resulted. She also claimed general damages, interest and costs.

4 On 9 April 1996, the reply and defence to counterclaim was filed. The claimant denied that his contribution had been intended to be a gift to the defendant, and insisted that it had been understood and agreed that his services would be his contribution to the joint undertaking. He denied that he had acted negligently or failed to provide proper care and skill or proper engineering services or to follow the drawings. If there had been any failures, they had occurred after he had discontinued his input into the project and had terminated his relationship with the defendant on about 18 July 1994. The order on the summons for directions was made on 27 January 1998, and the request for hearing was filed on 25 May 1998. The case has been ready for trial ever since. As a result of directions given at a pre-trial hearing, all evidence in chief was by way of witness statements, and all documents used at the trial were exchanged and exhibited in a core bundle. The costs of the successful party were agreed at $11,000.00. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf, while, besides the defendant herself, she called to testify on her behalf the builder Foster Cornelius, Addison Workman a structural engineer, and her father Steadman Martin.

6 The facts as I find them are as follows. The claimant is a civil engineer employed since 1993 by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda at the Ministry of Public Works. He has been a qualified civil engineer since 1988. He was involved in an intimate relationship with the defendant from about the summer of 1992 while he was a student in Canada. The defendant was at the time under an obligation to her employer bank, as a result of a commitment that she had given, to construct a home on a lot of land she had purchased with financial help from the bank from Belle View Estate in the year 1988. She spoke about her plans to the claimant, and he naturally offered to assist when he returned from studying in Canada. In about March 1993, the bank reminded the defendant of her commitment to build within 3 years. The...