ANATASHA Fraser, wife of Cecil Fraser, was granted $1.5 million from the matrimonial assets which presently lie in the hands of her husband (Respondent), as her share in the division of property. The award followed an application by the woman for division of property, which was heard by Chief Justice (Ag.)Ian Chang, S.C. in the matter of the Married Persons Property Act, Chapter 45.04, as amended by the Married Persons Property (Amendment) Act No. 20 of 1990.
Atorney-at-Law Mr. Lyndon Amsterdam appeared for the applicant, Anatasha Fraser.
Mr. Marcel Bob represented the respondent.
Delivering his decision recently, the acting Chief Justice said:-
“It does appear to this court that the applicant did significantly contribute to the success of the respondent’s business ventures during their common-law relationship, and for some time shortly after their marriage.
“However, it does also appear that, shortly after the marriage, the applicant made a conscious decision to seek to uplift her educational and financial standards using the matrimonial assets.
“In other words, her role of positive contributor was reversed to that of a positive detractor. The result was the failure of two of the applicant’s business ventures. It is likely that the applicant became aware of the respondent’s extra-marital affairs with other women, which eventually produced three children outside of their marriage, and she reversed her role as a supportive wife to that of self-seeking one in relation to the matrimonial assets.
“While her previous conduct contributed to the success of the applicant’s business ventures, her later conduct contributed to the failure of those ventures for her own personal benefit.  Simply put, she was taking from the business assets when previously she was contributing to them.
“On the basis that the applicant will not be required to surrender whatever matrimonial assets she was able to put aside for her own benefit, and that she was trained and educated with the matrimonial assets, this court does not see it fit to award to the applicant more than $1.5 million from the matrimonial assets which are presently in the hands of the respondent.
“The court therefore awards to the applicant $1.5 million as her share in those matrimonial assets which lie in the respondent’s hands. It appears that a not insignificant portion of the entire matrimonial assets already lie in her hands.
The acting Chief Justice has also ruled thus: “Each party to bear his and her own costs.”