Mon | Oct 23, 2017

UK Privy Council sends back divorce case of popular Kingston couple to Supreme Court

Published:Tuesday | April 28, 2015 | 8:38 AMBarbara Gayle, Justice Coordinator

The United Kingdom (UK)-based Privy Council yesterday sent back the case brought by Eutetra Bromfield against her ex-husband, Vincent Bromfield, for the Supreme Court to determine maintenance for her under the Matrimonial Causes Act.

The woman had brought multiple claims under the Married Women's Property Act as she sought orders from the court, however, the claims were dismissed by the Privy Council.

Bromfield operates transport company, Bloomfield Jamaica Limited  and Medallion Hall Limited, which runs the Medallion Hall Hotel on Hope Road in Kingston 6.

The Privy Council ruled that the businessman must continue to pay a 2000 Supreme Court order of $50,000 monthly to his ex wife until further orders by the local courts.

Bromfield, 79, and his ex wife, 72, were married in 1977 and were divorced in 1998.

The woman claims she has equitable interest in Bloomfield Jamaica, Medallion Hotel and properties owned by her ex-husband. 

She claimed she worked in the businesses during the marriage.

In 2006, the Supreme Court awarded her a lump sum of $3 million, however, she disagreed with the ruling and filed an appeal.

However, in 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.

She then took the issue to the Privy Council which found that Bromfield failed to provide credible information concerning his income and expenditure.

The Privy Council said that Justice Patrick Brooks, who heard the matter in the Supreme Court, should have sought to obtain the information through means such as copies of recent tax returns, bank statements and credit card statements.

The Privy Council said it was impossible for the judge to identify fair capital provision for Bromfield without any reference to the approximate size and nature of the existing assets of Bromfield and herself.

Bromfield's appeal under the Matrimonial Causes Act was allowed.

However, her appeal under the Married Women's Property Act was dismissed.