Banque Privée Edmond De Rothschild Ltd v Dominique Queirazza Leday

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Mr. Justice Neil Brathwaite
• Judgment Date: 20 September 2023
• Docket Number: 2013/CLE/gen/01699
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

IN THE MATTER of Order 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

AND IN THE MATTER of an application by Edmond de Rothschild (Bahamas) Ltd. (formerly Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild Ltd.) for interpleader relief against the claims of Dominique Queirazza Leday of the one part and Tommaso Queirazza of the other part in respect of the assets contained in certain accounts maintained at Edmond de Rothschild (Bahamas) Ltd. (formerly Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild Ltd.) and valued at approximately EURO €1,651,671 which is equivalent to US $2,255,852 or B $2,244,569.

BETWEEN:

Banque Privée Edmond De Rothschild Ltd.

Plaintiff

and

Dominique Queirazza Leday

First Defendant

and

Tommaso Queirazza

Second Defendant

BETWEEN:

Tommaso Queirazza

Plaintiff

and

Dominique Queirazza Leday

Defendant

Before The Hon Mr. Justice Neil Brathwaite

2013/CLE/gen/01699

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT

COMMON LAW AND EQUITY DIVISION

Appearances:

Attorney Tara Cooper–Burnside for the Plaintiff

Attorney Sean Moree and Erin Hill for the First Defendant

No submissions by the Second Defendant

DECISION (COSTS)

FACTUAL SUMMARY

1 1. This matter involves the division of the estate of Mr. Francesco Queirazza, an Italian national of substantial wealth, who was survived by his wife Dominique Queirazza Leday and his only son, Tommaso Queirazza. The deceased left assets in account M maintained by ABL West Ltd., formerly Banquee Privée Edmond de Rothschild (Bahamas) Ltd, to which Dominique Queirazza Leday and Tommaso Queirazza both claimed beneficial ownership. These assets were the subject of a Declaration of Trust dated 12 July, 2011 for the benefit of Dominique Queirazza Leday. Following the death of her husband in 2011, Dominique Queirazza Leday attempted to transfer the assets in Account M to her personal account F at the Bank in accordance with the terms of the settlement. Tommaso Queirazza, the executor of his father's estate, challenged Mrs. Queirazza Leday's ownership of the assets in Account M.

2 On 17 October, 2013 the Bank filed an Originating Summons to determine whether the settlement was a valid and enforceable inter vivos trust, and to determine who was to be the beneficiary of the said assets. On 28 May, 2015, Justice Stephen Isaacs (as he then was) ruled that the settlement was valid and enforceable and that Dominique Queirazza Leday was the beneficiary of the assets. However, Tommaso Queirazza sought to appeal that ruling, and the decision of Isaacs J was stayed.

3 Banque Privee applied to the Supreme Court on 19 August, 2019 seeking further directions, due to a lack of concurrence of counsel which resulted in a failure to comply with an order of Stephen Isaacs J order that fifty percent of the assets be transferred to Dominique Queirazza Leday and the other fifty percent be held in a joint bank account by the parties' Counsels pending the appeal or further order. Banque Privee also sought to be released from any indemnity concerning the funds.

4 A reserved decision was delivered by this court in the matter, ordering that the assets held on trust by the Plaintiff be paid to the beneficiary of the trust, Dominique Queirazza Leday. The parties were invited to either agree a position on costs, or to lay over submissions.

SECOND DEFENDANT'S POSITION

5 Following the invitation of the court to provide written submissions on costs, counsel for the Second Defendant wrote to the court on 24 ^th February 2023, indicating that they had no instructions on the issue of costs and would not be providing submissions. They further indicated that the Second Defendant had been advised that the court would make a decision on the issue without the benefit of submissions on behalf of the Second Defendant.

FIRST DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS

6 The First Defendant notes the provisions of the following provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court: Order 30(1)

30. (1) Subject to this or any other Act and to rules of court, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the Court, including the administration of estates and trusts, shall be in the discretion of the Court or judge and the Court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.

Order 59 Rules 2(2) and 3(2)

Order 59 Rule 2(2) The costs of and incidental to proceedings in the Supreme Court shall be in the discretion of the Court and that Court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid, and such powers and discretion shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with this order.

Order 59 Rule 3(2) (2) If the Court in the exercise of its...