Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:39:36.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trinidad and Tobago: A Case for Reform in the Law of Succession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karen Tesheira
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is rather distressing, if not tragic, that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, with a relatively large legal population and a somewhat litigious reputation, has earned itself the dubious distinction of having the most archaic, if not the most inequitable, succession laws in the English-speaking Caribbean, second only to the Bahamas.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 675 - 684
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cooper v. Cooper (1874) L.R. 7 H.L. 53, 66. on the Statute of Distribution.

2. (1968) 12 W.I.R. 125, 128 where the meaning of the phrase “the law of England” was discussed and distinguished from ambulatory phrases used in local legislation such as “for the time being in force” or “from time to time”. See also Re Schuler's Estate, Schuler v. Powell and Another (1985) 37 W.I.R. 371, 387–388.

3. This is by virtue of the Status of Children Act Ch.46:07.

4. See the Report of the Committee on the Law of Succession in relation to illegitimate persons (1966, UK), in which the identical provision and its effect and meaning were considered and discussed and where it was decided that proof of paternity would be satisfied. inter alia, by voluntary recognition or acknowledgement by the father, e.g. by formal signature on the register of birth or some other document.

5. The Status of Children Reform Act Cap.212.

6. The Status of Children Act Cap. 180.

7. H.C.A. No. 1992 of 1982.

8. The direct contribution test has been relaxed somewhat in recent years in England. See Grant v. Edward [1986] 2 All E.R. 426 and Hammond v. Mitchell [1992] 2 All E.R. 109. In both cases, which concerned an unmarried couple, the applicants successfully claimed a beneficial interest in property based on the indirect contribution test. However, both cases appeared to turn on their special facts, inter alia, that there was evidence of express discussions that the property would be shared beneficially. On the other hand, where the only way of establishing an agreement to share the property is by inference from conduct, indirect contribution will rarely, if ever, be taken into account: see the House of Lords decision in Lloyds Bank v. Rosset [1991] 1 A.C. 107. See also the Guyanese case of Abdool, Hack v. Rahieman (1976) 27 W.I.R. 109 where it was held, inter alia, that the common law spouse/ applicant's indirect contribution by way of undertaking substantial housekeeping expenses was sufficient evidence of a common intention.Google Scholar

9. See also on this point Abdool Hack. ibid.

10. Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act Ch.45:51. s.2(3). (6).

11. See Clause 2 of the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 which has added common law spouses to the category of possible applicant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

12. Supra n.7 (per Sharma J). See also Abdool Hack, supra n.8.

13. See Act No.2 of 1972, Sch.2. which repealed and replaced Part III. Family Provision, of Wills and Probate Ordinance Ch.8 No.2.

14. Age of Majority Act Ch.46:06. s.4.

15. Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act Ch.45:51. s.42.

16. Ss.10–13, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

17. S.12, Family and Dependant Provision Act 1990.

18. See Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act Ch.45:51. s.44.

19. S.104 of the Succession Act No.27/1981. But see also ss.94–116.

20. See idem, s.88.

21. Administration of Justice Act 1982. s.17.

22. Wills Act Cap.384, s.12.