Ryan v Scott

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Summerfield, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 03 May 1978
• Docket Number: Not stated
• Date: 03 May 1978
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Ryan

and

Scott

Summerfield, C.J.

Not stated

Grand Court

Real property - Land adjudication — Discovery of additional evidence —

Held: Additional evidence did not constitute good root of title for purpose of s. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the 1971 law. Appeal allowed and matter remitted to another adjudicator.

Facts:

Dispute between parties as to ownership of land. Claims adjudicated upon pursuant to Land Adjudication Law, 1971. Adjudicator found in favour of appellant. Respondent petitioned tribunal on ground of discovery of additional evidence. Evidence consisted of oral testimony and payment voucher with Government receipt for lands used for airstrip. Adjudicator awarded absolute title to respondent —

Appearances:

Mr. R. Alberga, Q.C., instructed by Messrs Walker & Co. for the appellant.

Mr. Truman Boddcn instructed by Messrs. Truman Bodden & Co. for the respondent.

Summerfield, C.J.

1 The appellant in this appeal (the estate of Catherine A. Ryan) and the respondent (the estate of Robert B. Leitch through the daughter of the deceased Cynthia. Ann Scott) initially laid claim to the land, the Subject matter of this dispute, in October 1974. The claims were upon pursuant to the Land Adjudication Law, 1971.

2 The land in question is that delineated as number 1 on the plan at page 6 (and at page,8) of the record with the legend “Estate of Catherine A. Ryan”. It is noteworthy that the whole of the land shown in that sketch (lots 1 to 5), known as the “Football Ground”, belonged to one J.R. Scott (senior) and devolved, on his death to his children each having a one-fifth undivided share therein. One of those undivided one-filth share devolved on Catherine A. Ryan whose estate is the appellant herein. The land was never subdivided or partitioned so as to vest any specific estate in any part thereof legally in any of those having a one-fifth undivided share.

3 The adjudicator found in favour of the appellant being in the following terms:

“The Scott family could lay claim to a specific plot of land at the Football Ground. They could claim an………. 1/5th in the Estate of the late Catherine A. Ryan…… …… unable to produce any documentary evidence……. ….. Mrs. Scott'………..

(*** several lines of illegible text missing ***)

the claim by the Estate of the late Robert B. Leitch must fail. Title to the whole goes to Estate Catherine A. Ryan.

TITLE ABSOLUTE

Stake Bay Friday 29th November, 1974.”

4 To make sense of that decision one would have to insert the word “not” after the word “could” in the first line. No doubt the omission was a typographical error.

5 The respondent petitioned the Tribunal on 14 February 1975 pursuant to section 20 of the Land Adjudication Law. The ground specified in the petition was “additional evidence discovered”.

6 That additional evidence was referred to in the adjudicator's decision...