Powery v Wonderlust Agency Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Sir John Summerfield, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 14 March 1978
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: Cause No. 646 of 1977
• Date: 14 March 1978

Powery

and

Wonderlust Agency Ltd. et al

Sir John Summerfield, C.J.

Cause No. 646 of 1977

Grand Court

Practice - procedure — Statement of claim — Striking out

Held: Sufficient if part of relief claimed can be supported by the facts averred. Fact that relief claimed went beyond what facts alleged could support was not a ground for striking out statement of claim on basis that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

Facts: Action brought by plaintiff as administrator of estate of AL.P. First defendant's title to land derived from conveyance from purchaser from Al.P. Contended that conveyance to defendant's predecessor was greater than Al.P could convey and therefore the first defendant's root of title was destroyed. Plaintiff sought declaration that Al.P's interest be restricted to one—ninth share of the estate of Al.P and an order that first defendant be removed from register as absolute proprietor of estate of Al.P. Application by first defendant for order that statement of claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action —

Appearances:

Mr. J. D. MacDonald for the applicant

Mr. Horace Edwards, Q.C. instructed by Miss. Annie H. Bodden for the plaintiff

1 This is an application by the first defendant (of three defendants) for an order that the statement of claim be struck out as disclosing no or no reasonable cause of action. There is no similar application on behalf of the other two defendants.

2 The applicant can be concerned only with the statement of claim as it relates to it, as first defendant, and should be in no way concerned in so far as it relates to the other two defendants — in particular the second defendant. I make this point because much of the argument was directed to the interests of the second defendant as bona fide purchaser for value and the extent to which that defendant was protected by sections 38 and 140 of the Registered Land Law 1971.

3 The essential features of the narrative of the statement of claim can be summarized as follows:

1

The action is brought by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of one Alexander Powery, deceased. By a judgment of the Grand Court and the Court of Appeal it was adjudged that the lands belonging to the estate of one Adolphus Powery were held by the nine children of the intestate as tenants-in-common and that Alexander Powery, deceased, was one of those children and, impliedly, his estate was entitled to a one-ninth share of that estate. 2. The paid lands of the estate of Adolphus Powery became the subject of five adjudication claims 3. On 30th August 1973, two were resolved in favour of the plaintiff — one being in his capacity as administrator of the estate; of...