Smith v Smith

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Sanderson, Ag. J.)
• Judgment Date: 05 January 2004
• Date: 05 January 2004
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Grand Court

(Sanderson, Ag. J.)

J.D. SMITH (Administratrix of the Estate of A. SMITH JNR.)

and

E.E. SMITH (Administrator of the Estate of S. SMITH JNR.)

Attorneys: Broadhurst DaCosta for the plaintiff; Boxalls for the defendant.

Land Law-contract of sale-specific performance

The administrators of two branches of the same family made competing claims to family land. Two quit claim deeds had been signed, one in 1970 vesting legal title in the plaintiff and another in 1984 purporting to transfer title from the plaintiff to the defendant for a specified sum. The court ruled (2003 CILR 146) that both deeds were valid, the second being enforceable subject to the defendant completing the agreed payment. The plaintiff filed further submissions claiming that the quit claim deed signed in 1984, acknowledging the defendant”s ownership of the land and entitling him to possession on demand, was not capable of conveying title.

The defendant counterclaimed that even if this were so and the deed itself did not give him title, his part-payment made in accordance with the deed constituted part performance of the contract to transfer title and sought to invoke this equitable doctrine to obtain specific performance of his agreement.

Held: (1)The quit claim deed signed in 1984 was not in the form prescribed by ss. 37 and 105 of the Registered Land Law 1971 (1995 Revision) and was therefore not capable of conveying title to the defendant.

(2) It would be possible in theory to grant specific performance if...