Visit UKSCJCPC/2021/0047
•
BUSINESS, PROPERTY, WILLS, AND TRUSTS
Dr Ramraj Deonarine and 4 others (Respondents) v Lauralee Ramcharan (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Case summary
Case ID
JCPC/2021/0047
Jurisdiction
Trinidad and Tobago
Parties
Appellant(s)
Lauralee Ramcharan
Respondent(s)
Dr Ramraj Deonarine and others
Issue
Can the appellant enforce the terms of a compromise agreement which purports to vary the terms of a will? Is the appellant entitled to any other relief?
Facts
This appeal concerns the estate of Seeram Seejattan, also known as Peter Seejattan. Mr Seejattan died on 21 March 2008 leaving property in Trinidad and Tobago and in the United States of America. By his will dated, Mr Seejattan appointed the first respondent, Dr Deonarine, as sole executor and directed him to sell Mr Seejattan’s property, to pay all funeral and testamentary expenses and then to distribute the remainder to Mr Seejattan’s four children, the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents (“the children”) in specified shares. On 15 May 2009, Dr Deonarine applied for probate of Mr Seejattan’s estate.The appellant, Lauralee Ramcharan, claimed that Mr Seejattan failed to make adequate provision for her as his common law wife. The appellant and the children entered into discussions which the appellant alleged resulted in a series of documents amounting to a compromise agreement (the “compromise documents”) with respect to the division, distribution and allocation of Mr Seejattan’s estate. The appellant asked the court to order that Mr Seejattan’s will should not be admitted to probate and that his estate should instead be divided in accordance with the compromise documents. The appellant further alleged that she was entitled to one of Mr Seejattan’s properties, known as “Laura Valley”. The children deny signing the versions of the compromise documents filed by the appellant.At first instance, the judge held that the appellant, as Mr Seejattan’s common law wife, was beneficially entitled to a 50% interest in the Laura Valley property. The judge refused to grant the other relief sought by the appellant. She declined to express a view on the validity of the compromise documents and held that the appellant should seek to enforce the alleged agreement after the grant of probate. The Court of Appeal, in part, allowed the respondents’ appeal and dismissed the appellant’s cross appeal. The Court of Appeal, amongst other matters, held that the judge was not entitled to rule on relief other than the appellant’s claim to enforce the compromise documents, but upheld the judge’s decision to otherwise dismiss the claim and other relief sought by the appellant. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Date of issue
17 May 2021
Judgment details
Judgment date
29 December 2022
Neutral citation
[2022] UKPC 57
Judgment links
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Start date
31 October 2022
End date
31 October 2022
Watch hearings
31 October 2022 - Morning session
31 October 2022 - Afternoon session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Change log
Last updated 9 May 2024