|
Sunday | May 28, 2000
| |||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
LoJ wins appeal
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
Life of Jamaica has won its appeal against a Supreme Court order last year that it should pay the stamp duty for letters of administration for one of its policy holders who died intestate because the administrator of the estate did not have the money to do so.
After the court made the order, Life of Jamaica (LoJ) appealed on the ground that the judge erred in ordering LoJ to pay over part of the proceeds of the policy of insurance when there had been no grant of letters of administration. It was also argued that the judge erred in holding that letters of administration had been granted in the estate of Roy Clinton Plummer.
Michael Hylton, Q.C. and Hilary Reid, instructed by Myers Fletcher and Gordon, represented LoJ and argued on appeal that "the notice of the Registrar to file a Kalamazoo copy of the letters of administration and to stamp the letters of administration exhibited to the affidavit of Glenford Plummer filed in the suit did not amount to a grant of the Letters of Administration." They said the judge fell into error in coming to a finding that on the evidence of the said notice a grant of letters of administration had been made.
Senior Puisne Judge Justice Ellis had ordered on August 11, 1999 that LoJ pay over to Raphael Codlin & Co. for stamping the letters of administration, the sum of $17,030 from the proceeds of a policy which was being held by LoJ on behalf of the estate of Roy Clinton Plummer.
Mr. Plummer, of Waterford, St. Catherine died intestate on December 22, 1994 and his four children were his beneficiaries. They agreed that their brother Glenford Plummer, of Stony Hill, St. Andrew should apply to the Supreme Court for letters of administration in regards to the insurance policy which was valued at $678,000. Plummer had difficulty finding $17,000 to stamp the letters of administration and he applied to the Supreme Court for the money to be released because the assets of the estate were wasting because he did not have any money. to pay the stamp duties.
The Court of Appeal comprising the Ian Forte, President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Donald Bingham and Justice Paul Harrison heard the appeal and ruled in favour of LoJ last week Wednesday.
Future guidance
"The judgement which now follows is intended not only to set out the reasons for the order made as to the disposition of the appeal, but is by way of an attempt to provide some future guidance to the profession and other bodies faced with similar problems to that raised in this matter," the court said.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the jurisdiction for the grant or refusal of non-contentious applications for probate or letters of administration ordinarily fell for consideration by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The court said that power was under section 5(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Additional Powers of Registrar Act. The court said that in light of that provision, the proper course open to Mr. Plummer in the event of an issue arising in relation to the stamping of the document was to request the Registrar of the Supreme Court, as the functionary responsible for such matters, to refer the question to a judge of the Supreme Court for his determination. "Such a course would also have resulted in the saving of costs as well as valuable judicial time."
The court referred to Macgillivray on Insurance Law and said under "title of administrators," it was stated that "In no circumstances therefore should an insurance office make any payment to or settle any claim with a next-of-kin or other person who may be entitled to but has not yet received letters of administration, unless such payment is expressly authorised by the terms of the policy." The court said those words completely determined the issues raised in the appeal and LoJ was fully justified in insisting upon proper documentary proof of Mr. Plummer's "title" and thereby his authority to act in the intestacy on behalf of the deceased's estate.
The Court also said that LoJ was therefore entitled to demand proof by means of a production of the letters of administration before parting with the proceeds or any part thereof of the insured's policy.
|
|
|||