Whittaker v Whittaker

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Husbands, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1980
• Neutral Citation: BB 1980 HC 26
• Docket Number: No. 203 of 1977
• Date: 25 June 1980

High Court - Civil Jurisdiction

Husbands, J.

No. 203 of 1977

Whittaker

and

Whittaker

Mr. M. O. Pierce for the appellant.

Mr. H.R. Linton for the respondent.

Family law - Husband and wife — Matrimonial property.

Facts: This was an application seeking orders for the determination of the applicant's interest in the former matrimonial home — Whether the applicant's contribution to the house keeping was such as would entitle her to a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home.

Held: There was nothing in the evidence which raised the inference that it was the common intention of the parties that the appellant should have a beneficial interest in the home — It had not been shown that the applicant directly or indirectly made any contribution to the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial home or made substantial financial contributions to the household expenses such as enabled the respondent the better to pay the mortgage or other loan installments — Finding that there was no resulting trust in the applicant's favour and that she had no beneficial interest in the matrimonial home.

Husbands, J.

1 This is an originating summons taken out by the applicant Sheila Yvonne Whittaker who seeks orders as follows -

1

for the determination of the applicant's interest in the former matrimonial home situate at Barker's Road, Haggatt Hall, St. Michael; 2. that the said matrimonial home be sold and the proceeds of sale distributed in such manner as the Court may determine; 3. that the respondent, her husband Murrell Keith Whittaker should pay the costs of the application; 4. for such' other order or relief as to the Court may seem just.

2 The parties were divorced on 2nd April, 1979. They had been married on 5th April, 1956. The applicant was then 18 years old and just out of school. The respondent was 23 years old and a Police Constable in the local constabulary. For about one year the couple lived at the applicant's father's residence. They then moved into a rented house and when the expenses of maintaining this home became burdensome the applicant returned to her parents' home and the respondent went to live with his father. Some time later the respondent's father made him a gift of a wooden house and the parties resumed cohabitation. Later the respondent's father gave him a portion of land at Haggatt Hall which became the site of the matrimonial home. With the assistance of Manning Wilkinson & Challenor Ltd., suppliers of building materials, with a loan of some $20 000 from the Housing Authority and with the help of his father, a mason, the respondent constructed the matrimonial home at a cost of some $33 000. Between 1968 and 1973 the respondent made further improvements to this home.

3 In 1978 the respondent on the security of the matrimonial home borrowed $30 000 from the Bank of Nova Scotia. With this he satisfied his indebtedness to Manning Wilkinson & Challenor Ltd. and to the National Housing Corporation, the successors to the Housing Authority. He now repays the Bank of Nova Scotia at the rate of $290 per month from his salary as an Assistant Superintendent of Police, and says that throughout his marriage he supplemented his income by the sale of pigs and vegetables grown at the home.

4 In her supporting affidavit the applicant swore that the “dwelling-house was built on the said land out of money provided by the respondent and myself.” However at the hearing the applicant pursued the matter in accordance with the terms of paragraph 6 of her affidavit, which reads: -

“6. I have at all times contributed substantially towards the upkeep and maintenance of the matrimonial home and out of my own money purchased certain furniture, domestic appliances and other home furnishings, in addition to providing for the children of the marriage.”

5 The applicant does not claim to have made any direct contribution to the acquisition, construction or subsequent improvement of the matrimonial home. In fact she says that when the house was being built she was unemployed and that the respondent did not inform her about the renovation and improvements. Her claim is that from the time of her marriage she spent her income on the upkeep of the home, on the purchase of groceries, linen and ware and on the provision of uniforms, schoolbooks and spectacles for the children of the marriage. There are 5 children born in 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961 and 1964. To her credit she does not claim that she did all this to the exclusion of the respondent. She agreed that the respondent “supported” the home and the...