By Writ and Statement of Claim the Plaintiffs seek an interest in property owned by their Aunt Jacqueline Smith now deceased (the Deceased). The Plaintiffs’ claim is that when the deceased purchased Lot no. 60718/256 (the Property) she indicated that upon the completion of the mortgage payments to Provident Limited (the Mortgagee), the Property would be shared among both the Plaintiffs and Defendants in equal shares.
The Defendants have refused to acknowledge the Plaintiffs' interest in the Property and it is alleged that they opened a new bank account which is now being used to collect rental income. The Defendants in their defence aver that the Deceased changed her mind before she passed away and this fact was communicated to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and her cousin Edith Skippings. They also aver that the Deceased did not make any written statement to the Mortgagee.
On the 14th of November 2024 Mr. McKnight on behalf of the Plaintiffs filed an application for specific discovery pursuant to O.24, r.12 seeking an Order inter alia that:- Within 7 days the defendants’ attorneys serve on the plaintiffs’ attorneys (i) a detailed schedule of accounting showing all rental income received in respect of property title number 60718/256 Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill, Providenciales since and inclusive of October 2017; (ii) copies of all bank statements showing all and any rental income received in respect of the property and (iii) copies of all bank statements showing all and any expenditure on the property.
In response the 1st Defendant submitted an affidavit. She avers that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the requested information for the following reasons: a. “The Defendants decided to put the 1st Plaintiff’s name on the bank account at Royal Bank Canada because he was the only male figure around at the time and in the event the Defendants were not present to sign on cheques, the 1st Plaintiff would be the second signature on the checking account”; b. The request for specific discovery is improper and premature; c. The Plaintiffs can show no legal justifications why the information should be provided; d. The property being claimed formed part of the estate of the deceased and the Defendants are the sole beneficiaries of the deceased estate.
Held: The Plaintiffs application is dismissed. The costs of and occasioned by the application, to be taxed on the standard basis if not agreed.
The summons for specific discovery pursuant to Ord.24 r.12 seems to be flawed as it requested the documents to be produced to the Plaintiffs’ Attorney. Rule 12 requires the documents to be produced to the Court pursuant to the test laid out in r. 13 (1) on the basis that it is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs see. Wallace Smith Trust Co Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Haskins & Sells (a firm) and another [1996] 4 All ER 403.
The Plaintiffs currently seeks an Order from the court that they are entitled to an interest in the Property, on a review of the pleadings the extent of the claim in respect of rent from the Property is unclear and will be a matter for the trial Judge. I am of the view that until such a decision is issued by the Court granting the Plaintiffs each a 1/5 share in the Property, there is no entitlement to accounting information relating to the Property and by extension rent.
In the circumstances the applicant has failed to prove that the requested documents is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter or for saving costs. I also find that the summons under Ord.24 r.12 is defective.