Home / News & Events

Muriel Lawrence v Edna Poorah (Deceased)

Anand Beharrylal appeared for the successful Appellant before the Privy Council in the case of Muriel Lawrence v Edna Poorah (Deceased by representative of her estate Tim Poorah) (and Shirley Poorah appointed to represent the estate of Edna Poorah). This decision has reversed a precedent set by the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal, where it considered that it had the power to substitute its own decision on grounds which had not been pleaded, which had not been raised before the trial judge, and for which permission to raise new points was neither sought nor granted by the Court of Appeal.

It is important for all practitioners to be mindful that the pleadings in any civil case must be drawn with precision. This ought to be the result of both full instructions from the client and proper legal research to ensure that all points that should be taken are in fact taken in trial. Where other points arise after pleadings are settled, whether at trial or on appeal, permission of the court should be sought to raise them, otherwise there is generally no basis for such points to be entertained. This is all the more important where Equitable Fraud is being alleged. Fraud of course is a serious allegation, which in certain circumstances could give rise to criminal liability. Accordingly, there must be clear evidence of it before it is pleaded.

In the instant case the allegation on behalf of Edna (by her son Tim) against Muriel was that Edna was not of sound mind, memory and understanding at the time she made a deed of conveyance of the family home to her daughter Muriel. Fraud was not alleged. The case was tried at the High Court before Mr Justice Prakash Moosai. Having heard the evidence on the issue Mr Justice Moosai concluded that Edna was of sound mind, memory and understanding at the time she executed the deed, had made a gift of the property to her daughter and therefore held the deed valid.

Tim being dissatisfied with the decision appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence and no application was made to add other grounds. Justices of Appeal Margot Warner, Stanley John and Ivor Archie (now Chief Justice) heard and allowed the appeal and set aside the deed. Justice of Appeal Warner in giving the judgment of the Court considered that on the evidence Edna did not receive independent legal advice, that the transaction was improvident and that in any event the pleadings were not precisely drawn. The point as to the pleadings was not raised in written or oral submissions on appeal. Ultimately Justice of Appeal Warner considered that the transaction between Edna and Muriel was an Unconscionable Bargain, which is a form of Equitable Fraud.

On further appeal by Muriel to the Privy Council, the main point argued was that the basis for the Court of Appeal reversing the High Court judgment i.e. Unconscionable Bargain, was simply not an issue at trial, Muriel had no real opportunity to deal with it and thus it was wrong in law. In this regard it ought to be remembered that the Court of Appeal is a court of review and ought not to interfere (save in the most exceptional circumstances e.g. obvious misdirection, fresh evidence etc) with a decision at first instance based on evidence. The Privy Council agreed allowing the appeal with costs and restoring the judgment of Mr Justice Moosai.

The decision (cited [2008] UKPC 21) can be accessed on the Privy Council's website.

Muriel Lawrence v. Edna Poorah (Deceased by Representative of her Estate Tim Poorah) (and Shirley Poorah appointed to represent the Estate of Edna Poorah) (Appeal No. 88 of 2006) Alan Newman QC and Anand Ramlogan appeared for the Respondent

For further information

• Woman whips siblings at Privy Council - The Trinidad Guardian 

6 April 2008

Top of page