Priscilla Thomas v John Felix Mervyn Stephen

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Cenac-Phulgence, J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0930-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NUMBER: SLUHCV2019/0620
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)

Between:

Priscilla Thomas

Claimant

and

John Felix Mervyn Stephen

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0930-1

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence High Court Judge

CLAIM NUMBER: SLUHCV2019/0620

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Mrs. Diana Thomas Hunte for the Claimant

Mrs. Veronica Barnard for the Defendant

Cenac-Phulgence, J

1 On 6 ^th January 2020, the claimant, Ms. Priscilla Thomas (“Ms. Thomas”), initiated a claim for remedies based on common intention constructive trusts or alternatively resulting trusts, arising from her contributions to the acquisition and improvement of certain properties obtained during her relationship with the defendant, Mr. John Felix Mervyn Stephen (“Mr. Stephen”). I will refer to the claimant and defendant together as “the parties”.

2 Ms. Thomas alleges that the following nine properties were acquired either individually or jointly by the parties: Parcel 0849B 442 (“the Barnard Hill property”), Parcel 0442B 178 (“the Distillery property”), Parcel 1445B 6 and Parcel 1445B 7 (“the Dauphin properties”), Parcel 0643B 291 and Parcel 0643B 292 (together “the Perou properties”), Parcel 1457B 279 (“the 279 Tivoli property”), Parcel 1457B 532 (“the 532 Tivoli property” and Parcel 1457B 533 (“the 533 Tivoli property”), and approached the Court for the following relief:

• i. A declaration that the defendant holds a share in Parcel 0849B 442 in trust for the claimant;

• ii. Alternatively, that the defendant do pay to the claimant half-share of the value of the improvements made by the claimant and the defendant to Parcel 0849B 442;

• iii. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to remain in possession of Parcel 0849B 442 until such time as the defendant pays the claimant in full for the value of the improvements made by the claimant to Parcel 0849B 442;

• iv. An injunction to be issued restraining the defendant from entering Parcel 0849B 442 until the defendant has paid to the claimant the value of the improvements;

• v. A declaration that the defendant owns a half share of Parcels 1145B 6 and 1445B 7 in trust for the claimant;

• vi. Further and/or alternatively a declaration that the defendant holds a half share of the proceeds of sale of Parcel 0442B 178 in trust for the claimant;

• vii. A declaration that the claimant and the defendant each own a half share in the following parcels of land: (i) Parcel 0643B 291, (ii) Parcel 0643B 292, (iii) Parcel 1457B 279, (iv) Parcel 1457B 532, and (v) Parcel 1457B 533;

• viii. Such consequential orders as may be necessary;

• ix. Costs;

• x. Further or other relief.

3 At the pre-trial review, the parties agreed that there was no dispute regarding the joint ownership of the following properties: (i) the Perou properties, (ii) the 279 Tivoli property, (iii) the 532 Tivoli property, and (iv) the 533 Tivoli property (collectively “the undisputed properties”). As a result, Ms. Thomas did not pursue any of the reliefs in connection with the undisputed properties. The Court is therefore only concerned with determining Ms. Thomas' entitlement, if any, in the Barnard Hill property, the Dauphin properties, as well as the proceeds of the sale of the Distillery property (collectively “the disputed properties”). That being said, it will be beneficial to set out the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the undisputed properties, as it sheds light on the nature and length of the parties' relationship, as well as their rationale and conduct when acquiring properties, whether jointly or severally.

The Pleadings

Nature, Duration and Breakdown of The Relationship

4 In her amended statement of claim 1, Ms. Thomas avers that she and Mr. Stephen formed a common law relationship in or about the year 1988, when the parties began cohabiting intermittently at the home of Mr. Stephen's parents located on the Barnard Hill property. In or around 1996, the parties began purchasing properties together, with the common intention that the properties acquired would be for the benefit of the family. She alleges that during 1996 to 2018, the parties acquired the disputed and undisputed properties.

5 Mr. Stephen denies that the parties shared a common law relationship since 1988. He avers that in 1987, when he met Ms. Thomas, she resided with her parents and only began living at his parents' home in 1990 when she became pregnant and was put out by her mother. Further, Mr. Stephen avers that it was he who requested the permission of his parents and brother to build the adjoining apartment, to allow the claimant to reside there for a period until after the baby was born, and then move out. Thereafter, the intention was for the apartment to be rented, to provide income for his mother upon her retirement.

7 In reply, Ms. Thomas disputes having been put out of her mother's home as she resided intermittently with Mr. Stephen at his parents' home between 1987 and 1989. Thereafter, they lived at Barnard Hill permanently from 1990 to 2018 in the adjoining apartment. At the relevant time, Mr. Stephen and his parents were

supportive of her studies and made arrangements for the child to live with Mr. Stephen and his parents when she went abroad for her scholarship

8 Ms. Thomas avers that the relationship deteriorated rapidly in 2017 after the death of Mr. Stephen's mother. Ms. Thomas too, was overwhelmed with her own mother's illness. She admits that the parties had their differences but were still in a relationship and living together until 2018 when Mr. Stephen moved out of the adjoining apartment after his mother's death. She therefore denies that Mr. Stephen lived at a small cottage (built on one of the Perou properties) at La Croix, as he alleges, or that she caused him stress. She attributes any stress to his poor lifestyle choices. According to Mr. Stephen, he broke up with Ms. Thomas in 2008 and got married to his now wife on 13 ^th June 2019.

9 Ms. Thomas relies on the fact that (i) Mr. Stephen slept at the Barnard Hill home with her and the children; (ii) had a family insurance with Clico and later Sagicor; (iii) had keys and entered and left the home whenever he wanted to; (iv) up to the year 2018 she was the sole next-of-kin and solely cared for Mr. Stephen when he was ill; and (v) they continued to make joint investments together, to show that the relationship continued long after Mr. Stephen suggests it did. In addition to this, the family took a holiday in June 2017. Ms. Thomas says she also took care of Mr. Stephen's ailing mother until 2017, and upon her passing, assisted with the funeral arrangements.

10 According to Ms. Thomas, it was only when the parties' relationship came to an end in 2018, that they entered into discussions through their lawyers to settle and partition the properties. However, these talks were futile as Mr. Stephen refused to cooperate.

11 In 2003, Ms. Thomas had her second child with Mr. Stephen. She avers that her responsibilities for financing the household increased with little help from Mr. Stephen, except for the occasional $500.00 for the child. There was no contribution by him to the household. Furthermore, during the relationship, Ms. Thomas avers that she gave a heavy percentage of her earnings and time to care for Mr. Stephen's parents.

The Barnard Hill Property

12 According to Ms. Thomas, in 1990, the parties began residing at the Barnard Hill property on a permanent basis. She, then being pregnant with her first child, was given permission by Mr. Stephen's parents to construct an adjoining apartment to their home, to raise their growing family. She says both she and Mr. Stephen contributed to the construction of this apartment, however she contributed a substantial portion form her own funds.

13 In or around 1998, Ms. Thomas, after obtaining Mr. Stephen's parents' permission, constructed a retaining wall with her own funds and resources, to prevent land slippage and destruction of the house and apartment.

14 Ms. Thomas alleges that in or around 2017, Mr. Stephen's ailing mother, Mrs. Camelita Stephen (“Mrs. Stephen”) had a meeting with the parties and offered to leave the home for Mr. Stephen and his family. She requested that Mr. Stephen pay his brother for his share in the Barnard Hill property which was valued at $50,000.00. Ms. Thomas alleges that with her consent, Mr. Stephen paid the said sum to his brother and became the registered proprietor of the Barnard Hill property in or around 2018.

15 Mr. Stephen in his defence avers that the land was bought by his father and brother, Clyde Stephens (“Clyde”), the latter then donating his one-half share to their father in 1992. Mr. Stephen says he then mortgaged that property with his parents' permission to purchase land and build the apartment. Prior to the passing of his mother, she wanted both brothers to inherit the Barnard Hill property. On her passing, Mr. Stephen paid his brother, Clyde his one-half share of the property, at which time he became the sole registered proprietor.

16 Mr. Stephen also denies that Ms. Thomas made contributions to the construction or improvements to the apartment. He avers that this apartment was constructed on his own through the use of loans and discounts for materials which he obtained from Monplaisir. This allowed him to build a kitchen and a deck. According to him, Ms. Thomas' only financial contribution was in relation to a concrete slab with a small supporting wall as he had already built a retaining wall to hold his kennels.

17 Further, Mr. Stephen denies that his mother had a meeting with him and Ms. Thomas about purchasing his brother's share in the property in 2017. Whilst a meeting did occur, it did not involve Ms. Thomas. Rather the meeting was held with attorneys, Tamara and Andra Foster, his mother, his brother, Clyde and himself. Mr. Stephen alleges that his mother blamed Ms. Thomas for his stress and...