Jason Richard Arnold v Stephanie Arnold

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Nabie, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2024
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. CV 702 OF 2023
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)

BETWEEN:

Jason Richard Arnold

Claimant/Respondent

and

Stephanie Arnold

Defendant/Applicant

CLAIM NO. CV 702 OF 2023

IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE

Catchwords:

STRIKE OUT CLAIM

Appearances:

Mr. Ian Gray for the Claimant/Respondent

Ms. Karen Munnings for the Defendant/Applicant

Nabie, J.

1 Before this court is an application by the defendant to strike out a claim for breach of an oral contract against the claimant.

2 I have considered the submissions of both parties. For the reasons set out below, I find the claim to be an abuse of process and the claim is struck out in its entirety

Background

3 The parties are husband and wife and have been separated for the past two years and are currently going through divorce proceedings distinct from these proceedings before me.

4 The claimant filed his claim form and statement of case on November 13, 2023. In the claim form, the claimant alleges three breaches of contract by the defendant relating to an oral agreement concerning the payment of bank loans, which were undertaken by both parties to pay for their homes. The claimant contends the defendant failed to pay the agreed portion of 50% of the bank loans as was agreed to orally by the parties. As a consequence, the claimant states that he undertook three separate loans in order to pay the mortgages for the family homes.

5 The claimant seeks relief of the outstanding sum of BZ$47,205.05, amounting to one-half of the remaining balance on the loans, plus interest and a refund of one- half of the total amount (BZ$467,385.25) being BZ$233,692.62 as reimbursement of the monies owed to the claimant. Alternatively, the claimant also seeks, damages for breach of contract, special damages, interest at the statutory rate and costs.

6 In her defence dated December 18, 2023, Ms. Stephanie Arnold (“hereinafter called he defendant/applicant”) refuted the claimant's allegations, contending that no such oral agreement was made between the parties. Additionally, the defendant/applicant asserts that the additional loans undertaken by the claimant/ respondent for the alleged repayment of family debts were taken after the claimant/respondent had left the matrimonial home, and these funds were not used for the benefit of the defendant/applicant or the parties' children.

7 The claimant/respondent filed a Reply to Defence dated December 29, 2023, refuting the defence and reiterating the gravamen of the claim and statement of claim.

8 On May 7, 2024, the defendant/applicant filed an application supported by affidavit evidence to wholly strike out the claimant's claim pursuant to CPR 26.3(1) (b) and (c) of the Supreme Court ( Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Hereinafter the “CPR”) and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The application was founded on three grounds. First, the defendant/applicant argued that the claim is an abuse of the court's process and discloses no reasonable ground for bringing or defending the claim. Second, the alleged oral agreement was not made in the prescribed manner for nuptial agreements, and therefore cannot be legally binding on the parties. Third, the defendant/applicant also argued that it is in the interest of justice, and in keeping with the overriding objectives of the CPR that the claim be struck out against the defendant. The defendant/applicant also sought orders inter alia for cost to be paid by the claimant to the defendant/applicant, and other reliefs as the court deems just.

The Law

9 The Court's discretionary power to strike out is outlined in CPR 26.3 which reads as follows:

“26.3 (1) In addition to any other powers under these Rules, the court may strike out a statement of case or part of a statement of case if it appears to the court -

(a) that there has been a failure to comply with a Rule or practice direction or with an order or direction given by the court in the proceedings;

(b) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is an abuse of the process of the court or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings;

(c) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim; or

(d) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is prolix or does not comply with the requirements of Parts 8 or 10.” (Emphasis Mine)

10 Additionally, the overriding objective of the CPR is a relevant consideration:

“1.1 (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

(2) Dealing justly with the case includes -

(a) ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to -

(i) the amount of money involved;

(ii) the importance of the case;

(iii) the complexity of the issues; and

(iv) the financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously; and

(e) allotting to the case an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.”

Issues

11 Considering the facts before me and CPR 26.3(1)(b) and (c) as well as the overriding objective of the CPR, the relevant issues before the Court are distilled as follows:

• 1. Does the claim disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the defendant?

• 2. Is the claim an abuse of process or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings that should be struck out in its entirety?

Issue 1 - Does the Claim disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the Defendant?

12 First, I will consider what is meant by ‘reasonable grounds for bringing the claim’ and whether the claim before me can be considered as such.

13 This was explained in the decision of Citco Global NV v Y2K Finance Inc 1 which was positively cited by Alexander J in Claudia Esmeralda Membrano v Daren Dale Swasey Claim No. CV153 of 2023. It can be said that a claim brings “no reasonable grounds” where:

“…the claim sets out no facts indicating what the claim is about or it is incoherent and makes no sense or if the facts it states, even if true, do not disclose a legally recognizable claim.”

14 On this point, I am not convinced that the claimant discloses any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the defendant. In my view, the claimant has not provided any cogent evidence to demonstrate the existence of the purported oral contract between the parties, other than making bare assertions of its existence.

15 The defendant/applicant, in her submissions for the application to strike out the claim, argued that there was no intention to create legal relations between the parties of the purported agreement, and, in any event the purported agreement was not legally binding because it was not made in the prescribed manner. This point is supported by reference to the decision of Santos v Santos, Claim No. 150 of 2016, which approved the following excerpt from the Learned Authors of the Halsbury's Laws of England 2:

“… One of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract is the arrangements which are made between husband and wife. It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselves. Those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute

consideration for the agreement. Prima facie, such agreements are outside the realms of the contract altogether, because the parties never intended that they should be sued upon, but is possible to show that this is a necessary implication from the circumstances of the parties.

On the other hand, the following are examples of situations where the courts have implied from circumstances an intention by the parties to enter a binding contract: a separation agreement made between spouses when they agree to live apart or after separation (but not such an agreement made during cohabitation); a promise before marriage by a man to his future wife to leave her a house if she married him, an agreement where the husband became the wife's tenant; and mutual wills.”

16 Bearing in mind the above, the onus is on the claimant to show, first, that there is a valid oral agreement, and secondly, that there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties in the purported oral agreement.

17 This intention would have been clearly demonstrated if the purported agreement was made meeting the...