Higgs & Johnson is pleased to report another successful outcome in recent Supreme Court proceedings in which the firm acted for the Applicant, securing judgment for US$3,000,000.00, together with interest and costs. The Court’s ruling represents a significant reaffirmation of the principle that a clear written acknowledgment of liability may suffice to ground judgment on admissions, dispensing with the need for a full trial.
In JSP v FOB, the Applicant, represented by N. Leroy Smith and Kimberleigh Turnquest, brought proceedings to recover the proceeds of sale of a corporate investment which the respondent had sold for US $3 million and retained. The case arose from a chain of fiduciary and investment relationships in which the respondent had formerly acted as trustee or nominee. Central to the application was a June 2021 letter in which the respondent expressly acknowledged having sold the applicant’s participation in a listed company, confirmed receipt of the sale proceeds, and undertook to remit those funds to an account designated by the applicant by July 2024.
The applicant sought judgment on admissions under Part 14 of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2022 (“CPR”), or alternatively summary judgment under CPR Part 15. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the dispute could only be determined at trial because it depended on contested facts, principally, whether any trust relationship existed at all. The Defence, filed the previous year, consisted of general denials directed at an earlier pleading that had referred to a formal trust structure. The applicant, however, had amended the claim to include an alternative case based upon a bare or constructive trust arising from the admitted receipt of the proceeds. The respondent never amended his Defence to address that reformulated claim and filed no affidavit evidence to explain the letter, to contest its meaning, or to advance any legitimate basis for retaining the funds.
Honourable Madam Justice Fitzcharles found the letter to be a clear and unequivocal admission within the meaning of CPR r. 14.1(2). It contained all the essential elements of the applicant’s bare-trust case, namely an acknowledgment that the respondent had sold property belonging to the applicant, received the proceeds, and agreed to account for them. The respondent had made no attempt to ascribe a different interpretation to his own words, nor had he raised any credible defence such as lien, set-off, or contractual right of retention. The Court emphasised that under the overriding objective of the CPR, it would be inconsistent with justice and proportionality to require a trial where the defendant’s own written admissions resolved the substance of the dispute.
Accordingly, judgment was entered for the applicant in the amount of US$3,000,000.00, payable within 21 days, together with statutory interest and costs. Having granted judgment on admissions, the Court considered it unnecessary to analyse the alternative application for summary judgment.
The decision is instructive on several levels. It underscores the potency of contemporaneous correspondence in fiduciary and commercial contexts: a letter written in the ordinary course of dealings may, if sufficiently clear, amount to a binding admission of liability. (Courts will not countenance speculative re-interpretations of plain language, particularly where a party fails to provide sworn evidence to the contrary.) It also illustrates the procedural importance of ensuring that pleadings keep pace with the case as it evolves.
From a practical standpoint, the ruling also provides a timely reminder to trustees, fiduciaries, and corporate officers of the need for caution in written communications. An apparently conciliatory statement of intent, such as an undertaking to release funds, may be construed as an unequivocal acknowledgment of obligation.
AUTHOR
The information contained in this article is provided for the general interest of our readers but is not intended to constitute legal advice. Clients and the general public are encouraged to seek specific advice on matters of concern. This article can in no way serve as a substitute in such cases.
Copyright © 2025 Higgs & Johnson, All rights reserved.
