The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) yesterday ruled in favour of a woman in Belize in relation to the division of assets with a man she had been in a common law relationship with.
In the case of Gulab Lalchand v Rutilia Olivia Supall, the CCJ upheld the decision of the High Court and the majority in the Court of Appeal of Belize.
A release from the CCJ said that Lalchand and Supall were in a common-law union for eight years during which time they entered into a cohabitational agreement providing for the division of assets. The relationship continued for four years after the agreement was made. After separation, Supall claimed in the High Court an interest in the shares of a company in whose name the couple had conducted business and in a property in which they had resided. The shares were originally in Lalchand’s name but were transferred to his children and the title to the property was in the name of a third party.
“The High Court ruled that the agreement was valid; that it did not prevent Ms Supall from claiming an interest in the properties; but that she did not have an interest in either property. The court went on to declare that Mr Lalchand had a beneficial interest in these assets, despite the legal titles being in the names of third parties. The court then proceeded to make an order, called an alteration of property order, as the law conferred power to do, awarding Ms Supall 35% of Mr Lalchand’s beneficial interests in these assets, amounting to BZ $240,000. The majority of judges in the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s findings”, the release said.
The CCJ affirmed that the court has the jurisdiction to make declarations regarding property rights and interests, and dismissed the argument that it should have declined to exercise jurisdiction because the third parties who held legal title were not made parties to the claim.
“In this regard, the legal owners of the assets had fully participated in the proceedings, and they had an opportunity to be heard by the court. The court then could properly decide on the ownership and interests in the shares and the property. Additionally, the CCJ held that the existence of a cohabitational agreement did not preclude the court from making an order to alter property rights and interests”, the court said.
The CCJ dismissed the appeal and ordered Lalchand to pay legal costs to Supall.
The matter was heard by Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Burgess and Jamadar.