User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

© Copyright 2023, vLex Justis. All Rights Reserved.

Copy for use in the context of the business of the vLex customer only. Otherwise, distribution or reproduction is not permitted

Dawson v Dawson

Jurisdiction: Barbados
Judge: Williams, C.J.
Judgment
24 July 1989
Date:
Neutral {:value=>"BB 1989 HC 52", :attribution=>"Judgment", :fulltext_available=>true,
Citation: :vid=>793049601, :url=>"/vid/793049601"}
{:value=>"BB 1989 HC 52", :attribution=>"Judgment", :fulltext_available=>true,
Reported In:
:vid=>793049601, :url=>"/vid/793049601"}
Docket
No. 301 of 1989
Number:
Court: High Court (Barbados)
Date: 24 July 1989

Id. vLex Justis VLEX-793049601

Link: https://justis.vlex.com/vid/dawson-v-dawson-793049601

Text

High Court. (Family Division)

Williams, C.J.

No. 301 of 1989

Dawson
and
Dawson

Appearances:

Miss Billie Miller for the applicant.

27 Oct 2023 00:08:44 1/4

User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

Mr. Randall Belgrave for the respondent.

Family law - Domestic violence — Matrimonial property division — Application for order
restraining husband from interfering with wife.

Williams, C.J.

This case came before me on an urgent application by Mary Dawson for orders that her husband,
Joseph, be restrained from (a) assaulting, molesting, threatening, harassing or in any other way
interfering with her and (b) going or entering upon the matrimonial home situate at 32 Lammings
Housing Area, St. Joseph except for the purpose of exercising access to the two children of the
marriage or pursuant to a court order.

The applicant and the two children, Liza aged 12 and Tanita aged 7, have temporary shelter
under a neighbour's roof. She says that she is, and appears to be, terrified of returning to the
matrimonial home while the respondent is there. He continues to occupy the house and says that
he wishes her to return and the marital relationship to continue.

It seems to me that the marriage is at an end. She recites an incident of violence in 1987 for
which he was convicted and fined, and violent incidents on April 19 and June 2, 1989 and is
adamant that she is not returning to him. In the interests of the parties and with their consent I
undertook to determine their interests in the matrimonial home. The situation that exists is not
likely to be resolved until the respondent, who will have to leave the house, knows what, if any,
interest he has in it and an appropriate order is made with respect thereto. The applicant's case is
that he made no contribution to the acquisition of the house. The respondent claims one half
share on the basis that he did make a substantial contribution.

I say that the respondent will have to leave the house because the court will not tolerate a
situation in which the parties' two young daughters have to be lodged with a neighbour when
they have their own home next door. The respondent can move to the four bed-roomed house in
Horse Hill where other members of his family live.

The parties met in 1976 and three months later started to live together in a rented apartment in St.
Michael. In 1979 they moved to a home which was constructed on plantation land at Horse Hill,
St. Joseph which the respondent's mother, Maud Dawson, rented. Everything appeared to have
been well during Maud's life but after her death the applicant became less comfortable living near
her husband's relatives and decided to move. The respondent, whom she had married in 1984,
did not want to leave Horse Hill but the applicant eventually had the house moved to Lamming's
Housing Area in 1988. The respondent took up residence there with his family.

The respondent's case is that he contributed to the acquisition of the home in Lamming's
Housing Area in money and by his labour. It is not in dispute that the house in Lamming's
27 Oct 2023 00:08:44 2/4
User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

Housing Area is a reconstruction at Lammings of the Horse Hill home. The applicant got the
materials (wood and crushed stone) transferred to Lamming's where the new matrimonial home
was put up. The respondent testifies that he had given the applicant cash sums of $2,300 and
$2,000 at different times towards the construction of the house at Horse Hill, the first sum in 1976
from an amount which he had received as compensation for injuries suffered in an accident while
at work at Uplands Factory and the second sum from a severance payment made to him in 1982
when he was laid off from Pine Hill Dairy. They were, he testified, about to get married at that
time. The respondent went on to testify that he helped with the concrete structure at Lammings
that he assisted in mixing mortar and handing bricks to the mason.

I have difficulty in accepting the applicant's contention that she was able to finance construction
of the house at Horse Hill from her own resources. The applicant went forward for the loans but
my finding is that the respondent made a substantial contribution and that the construction of the
Horse Hill home was their joint effort. Not being able to determine their individual contributions, I
think that in all the circumstances I should hold that they are entitled each to a one half share.

But that is not the end of the matter. It is clear to me that the applicant was the moving spirit
behind the acquisition of their material possessions and must have made a great contribution in
her role as homemaker and parent. She will also have the responsibility for sheltering their two
daughters. $70 per week from the respondent will be a help but will be nowhere near what it will
take to house and shelter the two girls. I think that this is an appropriate case for making an order
under section 57 of the Act. It is in my judgment just and equitable to make an order varying their
interests in the home at Lammings so as to vest three quarter share in the applicant and one
quarter in the respondent.

The applicant's financial resources are fragile. I will refrain from making an order at this time for
the sale of the home in order to satisfy the respondent's interest. The children must have
somewhere to live. The orders I make are:–

(1) joint custody of the children with care and control to the applicant and reasonable
access to the respondent;

(2) the respondent to vacate the house at 32 Lammings Housing Area on or before July 31,
1989;

(3) the respondent be restrained from assaulting, molesting, threatening, harassing or in

any other way interfering with the applicant;

(4) with effect from August 1, 1989, the respondent to grant the applicant and the children
the quiet use and enjoyment of the premises at 32 Lammings Housing Area and that he be
restrained from entering upon the premises except for the purpose of exercising access to
the children;

(5) the respondent to pay $70 per week towards the maintenance and support of the
children;

27 Oct 2023 00:08:44 3/4

User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

(6) the applicant to have three quarters interest in the house and the respondent one
quarter.

Liberty to either party to apply.

There was some mention in the hearing about threats to burn down the house. It would be
advisable for the applicant to do what she can to see that the house is adequately insured. If the
house is burnt, the court would have to reassess the needs of the parties and the children in
order to determine the appropriate order to make in respect of any insurance moneys payable.
No order as to costs.

27 Oct 2023 00:08:44 4/4