Belle (as executor of the estate of the late Shirley May Belle) v Belle

The case involved a dispute between Belle, the executor of the late Shirley May Belle's estate, and Belle, the defendant who had been granted the right of occupation of the deceased's property under certain conditions outlined in her mother's will. The plaintiff sought an assessment of damages against the defendant for allegedly failing to comply with the conditions of the will, which led to the plaintiff obtaining a writ of possession against the defendant. The defendant remained in possession of the land despite the writ, prompting the plaintiff to apply for an assessment of damages against the defendant. The defendant did not appear in court to contest the plaintiff's application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it should proceed to assess damages against the defendant in her absence, considering the defendant had not appeared in court to contest the plaintiff's application. The court had to determine whether the absence of the defendant justified proceeding with the assessment of damages against her.

The court held that it could proceed with the assessment of damages in the defendant's absence, as the plaintiff had provided evidence of the defendant's failure to comply with the conditions of the will. The court found that the defendant had not provided any reason for her absence and that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to warrant an assessment of damages. The court proceeded to assess damages against the defendant, noting that the amount would be subject to future adjustment if the defendant chose to contest the assessment at a later date.

The court ordered that damages be assessed against the defendant and that the amount would be subject to future adjustment if the defendant chose to contest the assessment. The court also noted that the defendant's absence did not preclude the court from proceeding with the assessment of damages, as the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support her claim. The court emphasised that the defendant's absence did not prejudice her right to contest the assessment of damages at a later date, should she choose to do so.