Della Vallery Nolan nee Jude and another (Respondents) v Vandyke Jude (Appellant) (St Lucia)
Case ID: JCPC 2022/0100
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St Lucia)
Case summary
Issue
Was the presumption of undue influence rebutted in respect of certain transfers of land to Vandyke Jude from his late father, in circumstances that Vandyke acted as his father's lawyer in respect of the transfers?
Facts
The appeal relates to a dispute between the children of Austin Jude, who died in September 2007. Prior to his death, while terminally ill, Austin Jude had instructed his son, Vandyke Jude, to represent him as his lawyer in relation to negotiations with Austin's long-standing business associate, Kenneth Monplaisir, regarding the portioning of their jointly-owned land that was registered in Mr Monplaisir's name.
At Vandyke's request Austin granted one of his daughters, Diane Jude, a power of attorney authorising her to dispose of any land he owned on terms that she deemed fit.
Following negotiations between Vandyke and Mr Monplaisir, there were various transfers of land from Mr Monplaisir to Austin and Vandyke, and from Austin (through Diane's power of attorney), his company, his sister and his cousin to Diane and Vandyke. Save for 10 lots transferred to his wife, most of Austin's property was transferred to Diane and Vandyke prior to his death.
In April 2009 Austin's other daughters, Della Vallery Nolan and Beverley Jude-Porter (also allegedly executor's under Austin's contested will) brought a claim against Vandyke and Diane challenging the transfers of land on the basis that the power of attorney and the transfers themselves were procured by undue influence, or amounted to an unconscionable bargain, or were procured by an abuse of trust and confidence. It was also claimed that the lands transferred to Vandyke and Diane were to be held on trust for Austin and/or his heirs.
The High Court dismissed Della and Beverley's claims in their entirety. The Court of Appeal allowed Della and Beverley's appeal in part on the basis that the 16 lots of lands transferred to Vandyke by two deeds dated 23 July 2007 were procured by undue influence, which was presumed on the basis of Vandyke's role as Austin's lawyer and had not been rebutted by evidence of independent legal advice. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the transfers and ordered Vandyke to account to Austin's estate for the lands he had sold.
Vandyke now appeals to His Majesty in Council as of right on the basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with the decision of the trial judge and to consider that only independent legal advice would rebut the presumption of undue influence.
Parties
Appellant
Vandyke Jude
Respondent
(1) Della Vallery Nolan nee Jude, (2) Beverley Jude-Porter
Appeal
Justices
Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose, Lord Richards
Hearing start date
11 June 2024
Hearing finish date
11 June 2024
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 11 June 2024 | Morning session | Afternoon session |