Pile v Pile (No. 3)

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, CJ.
• Judgment Date: 01 September 1977
• Neutral Citation: BB 1977 HC 36
• Docket Number: No. 483 of 1977
• Date: 01 September 1977

High Court

Williams, C.J. (Ag.)

No. 483 of 1977

Pile

and

Pile (No. 3)

F.G. Smith, Q.C., S.C., and V.O. Smith for the plaintiff.

W.H.A. Hanschell, Q.C., and P. Williams for the defendant.

Practice and Procedure - Court Order — Amendment

Facts: This was an application under the “liberty to apply” paragraph of an order made in a judgment involving the two parties — The action involved a separation between husband and wife and the wife sought orders of the court on ownership of the property and visitation rights of the father

Held: The court made specific orders regulating the use of the premises and visitation rights as requested.

1 Williams, CJ. (Ag.): The application before me is under the “liberty to apply” paragraph of the order which I made in this suit on the 8 ^th August. In giving my reason I commented on the good fortune of this family – for it is still a family in spite of the deep rift which religion has caused – in having premises like “Morningside” available in this distressing situation. My order contemplated that the wife and the children would occupy the main residence while the husband would occupy the Annex; that the husband would continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the household and would have access to the children; and that, with the care and control being given to the wife and their custody being vested in the court, there would be no obstacle to the wife's resumption of full fellowship in the Brethren. Some relief would thus be provided for her emotional and spiritual stresses.

2 The hope was that the order would provide the outlines while the parties could fill in the details. This would be so much better than having the court regulate every little item of their affairs. But this hope has up to now not been realised. The parties are having difficulties in respect of the use of the ground floor rooms of the main residence.

3 The applicant – wife is complaining of the husband's use of these rooms as if nothing had happened. She is seeking control over the main residence, upstairs and downstairs, in order that his entry on any part thereof would only be with her permission. She has still not yet resumed full fellowship in the Brethren and the message which the court appears to be getting is that she cannot resume full fellowship unless she is granted what they term exclusive residence of the main house – the husband's use thereof being restricted to use with her...