Fay Chang Rhule (Appellant) v Angela Smith and another (Respondents) (Jamaica)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0004

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Fay Chang Rhule

Respondent(s)

Angella Smith

General Legal Council

Issue

Is there a duty on an Attorney-at-Law to look behind a foreign power of attorney which is regular on its face and satisfies the relevant statutory provisions, and contains no express requirement on its face to look behind it?

Facts

The First Respondent, Angela Smith, and Denton Mckenzie were married on 17 November 1990. In 1994, they became registered as joint proprietors of a property in Jamaica. The property was subject to a mortgage. In 2011, Carolyn Alexander, with whom Mr McKenzie shared an intimate relationship, engaged the Appellant Fay Chang Rhule, an Attorney-at-Law, in relation to the sale of the property, and presented to her a power of attorney dated 6 March 2011 and signed by Mr McKenzie as the donor. That power of attorney authorised Ms Alexander to act as the vendor for the sale of the property. Having researched the title at the National Land Agency, the Appellant discovered that Ms Smith was a joint registered proprietor of the property. This prompted her to make enquiries of Ms Alexander who told her that both owners of the property were incarcerated in Canada. The Appellant was then later provided with a power of attorney purported to have been made in favour of Ms Alexander by Ms Smith as donor. The Appellant conducted the sale of the land and transferred the proceeds to Ms Alexander. Ms Smith made a complaint to the Second Respondent, the General Legal Council, that she had not signed the power of attorney or consented to the sale of the property, and that the Appellant had breached Canon I(b) of the Legal Professional (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules by acting pursuant to that power of attorney. The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council found the Appellant not guilty of professional misconduct. The Court of Appeal allowed Ms Smith’s appeal, substituting a verdict of guilty of professional misconduct. The Court of Appeal granted the Appellant permission to appeal to the Judicial Committee.

Date of issue

16 January 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top