Ritches Estate Ltd v Reed et Al
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Summerfield, J. |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1978 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Docket Number | Land Adjudication Appeal No. 27 of 1976 |
| Date | 25 July 1978 |
Sir John Summerfield, C.J.
Land Adjudication Appeal No. 27 of 1976
Grand Court
Real property - Title — Whether document conveyed land
Held: Ex. E could not be treated as a good documentary title for the purpose of The Land Adjudication Law s.16(1)(a)(iii). It was not a deed under seal, bore no stamp, did not identify land to which if related, did not identify land to which it related, did not describe the estate or interest of T.R., was signed by T.R. himself — Even if Ex. E. constituted such title, T.R.'s estate would have vested in T.R.'s heir at law and not in the administrators — Appellant could only challenge award to respondent if appellant had interest or estate instead of respondent — Appeal dismissed.
Facts: Dispute as to title to lot 917 — Lot 917 was part of a larger claim by the appellant and persons purporting to derive through him — Reliance placed on root of title to the whole of the land claimed based on Ex. E to give good title to T.R. — Letters of administration granted to T.R.'s grandsons — Administrator purported to convey the whole of the land to the appellant
Mr. Allen Labor and Miss Hillary Wilson, instructed by Mr. Steve McField for the appellant
Mr. Raymond Alberga Q.C., instructed by Messrs. Truman Bodden & Co. for the 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and 8 th respondents
The land to which this appeal relates is a parcel in the north of Little Cayman, which may for convenience be described as lot L.C. 917 (to correspond with the claim number accorded in the dispute form filed by the appellant). This is delineated on Ex. M and Ex. R together with an identification legend, which ties in with the case number 1/LCE/D. The areas of land within lot L.C. 917 claimed by the rival claimants are plotted in red and blue on an enlargement of that lot on Ex. R with the distinguishing numbers accorded to the parcels constituting those rival claims.
The appeal is brought under section 23 of the Land Adjudication Law 1971. All references herein to sections are references to sections of that law.
At the outset learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the 1st respondent had good title to the parcels numbered 827 and 830 on Ex. R and abandoned the appeal in so far as it related to those parcels. The appeal in so far as it relates to those two parcels and the first respondent is therefore dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
Another parcel of land within the overall lot L.C. 917 is parcel number 930 in the name of the estate of John Ryan as shown on Ex. R, the estate John Ryan has not been made a respondent to this appeal. Mr. Stafford ought to have the record amended by substituting John E. Ryan for James L. Ryan in respect of whom he had no instructions) named as the 7th respondent. This was resisted by counsel for the appellant and I took the view that the parties to the dispute could not be altered at this stage — that is at the Appeal stage – the dispute stage and petition stage having been disposed of. The verbal application to bring in John E. Ryan as the 7th, respondent was therefore dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal cannot be treated as in any way affecting parcel number 930 in the name of the estate of John Ryan and cannot disturb any finding in relation thereto.
The grounds of appeal, set out in the notice of appeal, which were relied on at the hearing were:
“1. The adjudicator's decision that lands claimed by Ritche's Estate Ltd. and not claimed by other parties should pass to the Crown is wrong in law.
7. By the failure of the adjudicator to comply with S.6 (1) of the Land Adjudication Law 1971 he conducted the adjudication on claim No. 917 in a manner that confused witnesses giving evidence for Ritche's Estates who were unaware that questions put to them were in respect of the entire seven miles stretch of land and not just claim No. 917.
9. The adjudicator erred in law by his decision that document signed by Thomas Matthias Ritch dated 1885 Exhibit E. in respect of Mary's Bay resulted in title for Ritch's logo passing to Waid Taylor Foster. If, the adjudicator erred procedurally when he allowed several documents to be admitted in block with the undertaking that counsel for the Ritch's Estate would be allowed to examine them and cross-examine the witnesses and such undertaking was not kept. The adjudicator confirmed his procedural error when he referred to the time that elapsed since September 1957.
16. The adjudicator erred in law when he did not see that S. 13 (b) of the Land Adjudication Law was complied with and so made it impossible for the Ritche's family to know what boundaries were referred to in adjudication.
18. The adjudicator was wrong in law in finding that the rights of the Ritches were lost to Wade T. Foster in 1885, or at any other date.
19. Further, or in the alternatives there was no evidence upon which the adjudicator was entitled to make any finding that there was any “Real owner” of the said land.”
It is with ground 11 that I must deal first.
It was pointed out by this Court that any irregularity relied on is not apparent on the record can only be considered if brought to the of the court by way of affidavit setting out the relevant facts, unless facts are agreed by all parties. On applications therefore, the appellant permitted to introduce the affidavit of Mr McMiIlan who had been counsel for the appellant at the dispute stage and junior counsel for the appellant at the titian stage, but who was no longer in the case.
The relevant parts of that affidavit are:
“3. appeared before the Adjudicators L. Howell Esq., on 22nd September 1976 to present the claim and on 27th May 1976 to present the Petition in the same action. The Adjudicator conducted the proceedings in a manner which I considered to be prejudicial to the interests on my clients in that he admitted irrelevant evidence in cross examination of my clients and in examination in chief of witnesses for the other side, despite my repeated objections. He also allowed leading questions to be put by the other side.
4. The Adjudicator opened the claim proceedings by stating that he only had two days to hear the evidence and consequently the case tsar extremely rushed arid I was unable to put many of the points, which I would have liked to have dealt with.
5. During the claim proceedings the other side produced a large number of documents in the course of James Ryan's evidence. These were documents, which I had repeatedly asked for prior to the hearing of the claim, indeed I made one trip together with Dick Douglas to Cayman Brac as I was lead to believe that they would be available there. On arrival I discovered that no documents would be available. I was informed by the Adjudicator at the hearing that I would have the opportunity to inspect the documents and to cross-examine on them during the course of the proceedings but the same afternoon the Adjudicator closed the case stating that he had no further time.
6. After the claim hearing and before the petition hearing I made repeated attempts to obtain the documents, visiting the Land Adjudication Office on many occasions, and was told that the documents were unavailable. I was eventually given time merely to photocopy the documents at the offices but the photocopying machine was out of order and I was not allowed any further time or the opportunity of taking the documents elsewhere to copy.
7. Throughout both proceedings the Adjudicator gave assistance to the other side, giving flexibility to their statements and interpreting their comments in a favorable light before recording them. This attitude was not taken with my clients and my view was that the Adjudicator was prejudiced against my clients throughout.”
Mr. McMillan was also cross-examined on his affidavit.
As to paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 he admitted that these grounds for complaint were not reflected in the petition (which was pretty, comprehensive) following the dispute stage nor were they reflected in the grounds of appeal to this court. The grounds of petition were prepared by Mr. Brandon who left at the petition stage, before they were filed they were seen by Mr. McMillan. Mr. McMillan prepared the grounds of appeal to this court.
He says that he cannot, say why the complaints in paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 were not reflected in the “grounds of petition”. He says that they were not made grounds of appeal to this court because “they were not supported by the Adjudicator's notes. That was partly the reason. The other reason was that it was “an unpleasant step to take”. It could have repercussion in other adjudication matters he had.
One hesitates to make the obvious comment on counsel's duty. Apart from that, it seems incredible that these matters of complaint would not find their way into grounds of appeal by responsible counsel handling the case if there was any substance in them.
The basis on which it is asserted that the Adjudicator was behaving unfairly and unjudicially was vague and lacking in particularity. There were allegations that several objections had been over-ruled, buts if that was the case, then those rulings could have been the subject of appeal if it was thought that the ruling was strong. When asked why he did not ask the adjudicator to make a note of his complaint of unfairness it was said that, earlier the Adjudicator had been asked to make a note of his complaints but had said that he could not note them all as he had to take them down in long hand.
Again, one hesitates to make the obvious comment. Despite this, however, the record is studded with objections and rulings — some in favour of the appellant, which on the face of come of them, suggest that the Adjudicator was leaning over backwards to accommodate the appellant.
Mr. McMillan further stated that if he insisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial