PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reaffirmed a ruling ordering that a woman who was in a common-law union for eight years be awarded 35 per cent of her ex-partner’s beneficial interests in a company amounting to $240,000 BDZ (One Belize dollar= $0.49 cents US).

The court heard that Gulab Lalchand and Rutilia Olivia Supall, during their common-law union, had entered into a cohabitation agreement providing for the division of assets.

The relationship continued for four years after the agreement was made and after the separation, Supall claimed in the High Court an interest in the shares of a company in whose name the couple had conducted business and in a property in which they had resided. The shares were originally in Lalchand’s name but were transferred to his children and the title to the property was in the name of a third party.

The High Court ruled that the agreement was valid and that it did not prevent Supall from claiming an interest in the properties, but that she did not have an interest in either property. The court went on to declare that Lalchand had a beneficial interest in these assets, despite the legal titles being in the names of third parties.

The High Court then proceeded to make an order, called an alteration of property order, as the law conferred power to do, awarding Supall 35 per cent of Lalchand’s beneficial interests in these assets, amounting to $240,000 BDZ.

The majority of judges in the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s findings.

The five-member CCJ panel of Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Burgess, and Jamadar, in affirming the ruling of the lower courts rejected the argument that it should have declined to exercise jurisdiction because the third parties who held legal title were not made parties to the claim.

The CCJ said in this regard, the legal owners of the assets had fully participated in the proceedings, and they had an opportunity to be heard by the court. The court then could properly decide on the ownership and interests in the shares and the property.

Additionally, the CCJ held that the existence of a cohabitational agreement did not preclude the court from making an order to alter property rights and interests.

It CCJ dismissed the appeal and ordered Lalchand to pay legal costs to Supall.