A new ruling from the Court of Appeal should give citizens confidence on a matter of fundamental importance when dealing with the critical issue of the certainty of commercial transactions and the spectre of undue judicial interference, according to a local lawyer.
The case in question is the appeal by David Moree against the ruling of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett that a joint bank account held by Moree and a deceased friend was part of the deceased friend's estate, and not Moree's property alone.
In brief, the appellant (Moree) and the deceased were former colleagues and old friends when the deceased wrote a will leaving bequests to Moree, the Bahamas Humane Society, the Salvation Army and the respondents in the appeal, Norman Whitlock and Dorothy Jack. The residuary clause of the will provided that any balances should be divided equally between the appellant and respondents.
One month later, the deceased converted a bank account to a joint account with the appellant. The account forms contained a joint tenancy clause. Subsequently thereafter, the deceased revoked the bequests to the Salvation Army and the Humane Society by codicil.
At the time of the deceased's passing, the account held nearly $200,000, which the Supreme Court found was money held in trust for the estate of the deceased. Moree appealed, alleging that he was beneficially entitled to the money.
Justice Jon Isaacs, writing for the Court of Appeal, explained that the higher court had set aside the Supreme Court judge's ruling and all orders made therein and pursuant thereto "in their entirety".
"The appellant is and was at all material times legally and beneficially entitled to the funds standing to his credit on his account, which was the subject of this appeal. The appellant's monies on the account do not form part of the estate of the deceased," the Court of Appeal ruled.
A matter of fundamental importance
Kahlil Parker, who appeared for Moree in the Court of Appeal, told Guardian Business that "a matter of fundamental importance to us when preparing and articulating the appellant's case on appeal was our concern that the judgment in the court below would set a dangerous precedent in commercial dealings of unnecessary judicial intervention, where parties have taken clear and definitive steps to establish their intentions, and to eliminate any ambiguity as to the relationship between themselves."
"In this case, both the bank, CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank (Bahamas) Limited, and the joint-account holders, through the execution of the clearly worded account opening documents in this case, did all that could reasonably be required of them to establish the appellant's legal and beneficial interest in the funds held on the joint-account during the life of the parties and after the death of one or the other," he said.
"As the Honourable Mr. Justice Isaacs JA, who delivered the Court of Appeal's judgment, determined of His Lordship in the court below: By placing scant reliance on the pellucidly clear [account] opening documents he proceeded beyond what was necessary for his determination...
"While there is undoubtedly more to this case and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, what is of general importance is that both commercial banks and their customers ought to have confidence that their clear intentions, as may be reflected in their forms and contracts, will not be unreasonably interfered with in litigation after the fact," Parker said.
"If the court is too casual about re-opining everyday commercial transactions ex post, we risk introducing an uncertainty that in all probability will be accompanied by incalculable transaction costs for both financial institutions and their customers. Of course the respondents have now been left to consider their respective positions at which point we will take things from there," he added.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
