Juneau v Gynell

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Summerfield, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 03 January 1984
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 03 January 1984

Grand Court

(Summerfield, C.J.)

JUNEAU

and

GYNELL

C. Adams for the applicant.

The respondent appeared in person.

Cases cited:

(1) Chowood Ltd. v. Lyall (No. 2), [1930] 2 Ch. 156; [1930] All E.R. Rep. 402; (1930), 99 L.J. Ch. 405; 143 L.T. 546, distinguished.

(2) Claridge v. TingeyWLR, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 134; sub nom. Sea View Gardens, Re, [1966] 3 All E.R. 935; (1966), 110 Soi. Jo. 567, distinguished.

(3) Deptford High St. (No. 139), In re, ex p. British Transp. Commn., [1951] Ch. 884; [1951] 1 All E.R. 950; [1951] 1 T.L.R. 1045, distinguished.

(4) Ebanks v. Powery, Grand Court, Cause No, 571 of 1978, April 3rd, 1981, unreported.

(5) Wood v. Wood, Grand Court, Cause No. 411 of 1980; on appeal, Court of Appeal, Civil App. No. 2/82, November 29th, 1982, unreported.

Legislation construed:

Registered Land Law (Revised) (Law 21 of 1971), s.140(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 6, line 38 – page 7, line 2.

s.151: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 5, lines 36–39.

Registration (Land) Law (Laws of the Cayman Islands, 1963, cap. 150), s.5: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 5, lines 31–32.

Land Law-registration-rectification of register-‘mistake’ grounding claim for rectification under Registered Land Law (Revised), s.140(1) to be based on fact not on ignorance of law-no rectification when failure to assert title due only to ignorance of requirements of Land Adjudication Law, 1971

The applicant applied, pursuant to the Registered Land Law (Revised), s.140(1) for rectification of a first registration in the name of the respondent of certain land.

In March 1953 H.T. conveyed the land in question by an indenture to A.T. and E.T. In February 1962 P.T. and H.T. conveyed a plot, including the relevant land, to the respondent and the conveyance was registered. Both the 1953 and the 1962 instruments were voluntary conveyances and the 1962 instrument recited that H.T. and P.T. had acquired title to the land ‘by occupancy’ and that their title had been registered in February 1962.

By a conveyance dated November 1971 A.T. and E.T. purported to convey the land to the applicant for valuable consideration. The instrument was registered under the Registration (Land) Law (cap. 150) in December 1971.

In November 1973 the respondent submitted her claim under the Land Adjudication Law, 1971 to the whole plot specified in the 1962 instrument which was submitted with her claim. The certificate of demarcation was issued in March 1974 and the Records Officer acknowledged acceptance of the claim pursuant to s.18(2) of the Law a few days later. None of the applicant”s documents was placed before the Demarcator or the Records Officer. The respondent was registered as absolute owner of the whole plot claimed.

The applicant sought rectification of the register on the ground that the first registration had been made in the respondent”s name by a ‘mistake,’ within the terms of the Registered Land Law (Revised), s.140(1), since his own documentary title was not considered or given effect to by the Records Officer. He claimed that he had been unaware of the necessity for making a claim under the Land Adjudication Law, 1971.

The respondent did not acknowledge that the registration was obtained in consequence of a ‘mistake’ within s.140(1), but conceded that the register should be rectified if the land legally belonged to the applicant.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The applicant was not entitled to rectification of the register in his

favour. His apparent ignorance of the law and consequent failure to assert his claim to the land as required by the Land Adjudication Law, 1971, s.8 was not a ‘mistake’ within the Registered Land Law (Revised), s.140(1) so much as default, negligence or inadvertence on his own part. A ‘mistake’ within s.140(1) had to be based on fact, not on ignorance of the law, in particular because to decide otherwise would be to defeat one of the main purposes of the Registered Land Law, which was to establish quiet titles (page 7, lines 20–27; page 9, lines 16–22).

(2) Even if the applicant had submitted a claim under the Land Adjudication Law, 1971 in competition with the respondent”s claim he would have been unsuccessful. In March 1974, when ownership of the land was adjudicated upon, the 1962 conveyance to the respondent had been registered for more than five years and was therefore deemed a ‘good title against all complaints whatsoever’ in terms of s.5 of the Registration (Land) Law (cap. 150) and, having been ‘established’ when the Registered Land Law came into effect in April 1972 it was saved by s.151 of that Law. Good title had not, however, been ‘established’ in relation to the 1971 conveyance to the applicant by the time that the Registered Land Law came into operation. The land was therefore properly registered in the respondent”s name (page 7, line 36 – page 8, line 14).

SUMMERFIELD, C.J.: This is an application to rectify a first
registration pursuant to s.140(1) of the Registered Land Law
(Revised).
The applicant, who resides in the United States of America and
5	visits these Islands fairly regularly, made no claim to the land con-
cerned under the Land Adjudication Law, 1971. He claims not to
have been aware of that Law or of the necessity for making any
claim to the land under it.
The land concerned is a small portion of the land registered as
10	George Town Central, Block 13 E H, Parcel 111 registered in the
name of the respondent. The area is about 30 ft. by 40 ft. It is not
demarcated on any map before this court, but by a process of
deduction it would appear to be located at the south-east of Par-
cel 111 with no road access. Anyway, the parties concerned are
15	well aware of its location and a subdivision could easily be made.
I will refer to it as ‘the land.’
The history of this unfortunate affair is set out in a letter from
the applicant to the respondent dated January 10th, 1978. It is
unnecessary to go into that history in any detail. Briefly it des-
20	cribes how the applicant bought the land from close relatives of
the respondent to assist one of them who was in financial difficul-
ties. The applicant intended to sell it back to the vendors within
three years when financial difficulties had been overcome. The
land is of little use to the applicant. It is too small to build on as a
25	separate subdivision (although one of the vendors has con-
structed a house on part of it without effecting any subdivision).
The lack of road access would create problems.

...