Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

( L - R ) Audrey Chin, Lascelles Chin

The 13-year-legal battle between Kingston businessman Lascelles Chin and his ex-wife Audrey ended yesterday with the United Kingdom Privy Council ruling that the shares in the multimillion-dollar company, Lasco Foods Ltd., must be divided equally between them.

Mr. Chin, who contended that Mrs. Chin was entitled to only one of 250,000 shares in the company, had taken the case to the Privy Council.

The Privy Council, in dismissing his appeal, upheld a ruling in December 2005 by Court of Appeal Judges Donald Bingham, Algernon Smith and Karl Harrison, that Mrs. Chin was entitled to half the shares. The Privy Council found that Mrs. Chin, who is a chartered accountant, was not a salaried employee as Mr. Chin had claimed. The Privy Council ordered Mr. Chin to pay all the legal costs.

Confronted by a formidable difficulty

In its five-page judgment, the Privy Council said that Mr. Chin was at the outset confronted by a formidable difficulty as his lawyer candidly acknowledged. "There is a strong and well-established rule that the Privy Council will not, apart from exceptional cases, entertain grounds of appeal which ask the board to differ from concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts."

The Privy Council was referring to the fact that Mr. Justice Neville Clarke (now deceased) had ruled in the Supreme Court in December 2001 that Mrs. Chin was entitled to a half of the shares in the company, and the Court of Appeal in December 2005 upheld that ruling. The Court of Appeal had ordered that the accounting firm Pricewaterhousecoopers should value the shares in the company.

Mrs. Chin who was represented at the Privy Council by Dr. Lloyd Barnett, had brought the suit in December 1993 under the Married Women's Property Act, claiming a half share in the capital of the company which was originally called Versatile Packing Ltd. The company was formed on February 21, 1986, and the Chins got married the following day. The marriage ended in 1994 and in 1996 Mrs. Chin lost her case in the Supreme Court when Mr. Justice Seymour Panton ruled that she was entitled to only one share. Lawyers representing the parties had turned down Justice Panton's request for evidence to be given on oath and the case was then decided on the affidavits and supporting documents which the Privy Council said did not clearly define the issues.

Mrs. Chin appealed and the Court of Appeal comprising Justice Ian Forte, Justice Henderson Downer and Mr. Justice Paul Harrison ruled in her favour in May 1999.

Mr. Chin took the case to the Privy Council which in February 2001 sent back the case to the Supreme Court for the witnesses to give evidence on oath by being cross-examined. The matter went before Justice Clarke who heard evidence under cross-examination and ruled in favour of Mrs. Chin.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com