Levy v Administrator
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | (Duffus, Ag. P., Lewis, J.A. and Moody, Ag. J.A.) |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1963 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 23 April 1963 |
(Duffus, Ag. P., Lewis, J.A. and Moody, Ag. J.A.)
R.C. Rattray for the appellants;
H.G. Edwards for the respondent.
(1) Att. Gen. v. Emerson, [1891] A.C. 649, observations of Lord Herschell applied.
(2) Att.-Gen. (Jamaica) v. Foote(1893), 1 Steph. Sup. Ct. Jam. 1037, dicta of Northcote, Ag. C.J. applied.
(3) Lord Advocate v. Lord LovatELR(1880), 5 App. Cas.273, dicta of Lord OHagan applied.
Cayman Islands Administration of Justice Law (Laws of Jamaica, 1953, cap. 421), s.56:
When any person shall be in possession of any lands or tenements without any title thereto from the Crown, or from any
owner or reputed owner or any right of occupation through an undisturbed possession, not being expressly permissive for twelve years, whereof the burden of proof to exclude the application of this section shall lie upon such person, the Crown, no person legally or equitably entitled to the said lands or tenements appearing, may lodge a statement of claim in the recovery of same; and thereupon a summons shall issue to such person in possession; and if the defendants shall not, at the time named in the summons, show good cause to the contrary, then on proof of his still neglecting or refusing to deliver up possession of the premises, and of the service of the summons if the defendant shall not appear thereto, the Court may order that possession of the premises . . . be given by the defendant to the Crown . . . .
Land Law-Crown lands-reception of English law-common law of England introduced into Cayman Islands by original settlers-common law rule that all land originally vested in Government subject only to estates subsequently granted to others
The respondent, on behalf of the Government of the Cayman Islands, brought an action in the Grand Court against the appellants for damages for trespass and sought a declaration of ownership of the land in dispute.
The Government had over a period of 30 years extracted rocks from an area of land called Clarinda Beach for the purpose of repairing and widening the roads in the Cayman Islands and also for the purpose of constructing an airfield. For many years the appellants had also extracted and sold rock from the same land. It was customary in the Islands for both the Government and individuals to take rocks from lands that clearly belonged to and were in the possession of other persons.
In 1961 the appellants erected a wooden mark on Clarinda Beach, from which mark they made a footpath going to the sea. The Government, through the Administrator, brought the present proceedings for trespass against the appellants who failed to produce documentary evidence to support their claim of title to Clarinda Beach. The Grand Court (Laming, Ag. J.) gave judgment for the Government and also granted it a declaration of ownership.
On appeal, the appellants submitted, inter alia, that (a) the Government had failed to establish the possession required by law to maintain an action for trespass; (b) there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding that the Government owned the land in dispute; and (c) the acts upon which the Government relied to prove ownership and possession were equivocal since it customarily took stones from the land of others and likewise other people took stones from the land in dispute.
The Government submitted in reply that (a) for upwards of 30 years it had been in quiet, undisturbed and undisputed possession of the land and had from time to time exercised acts of ownership over it; (b) the Cayman Islands being a settled colony, the common law of England (the law of its first settlers) applied and, therefore, the ownership of the land was vested in the Government, subject only to such estates as might have been granted to persons subsequent to its settlement; and (c) the appellants had failed to show that they had title or could have acquired title from a private owner and therefore even if the appellants had been
in possession it would have been entitled to recover the land under the terms of s.56 of the Cayman Islands Administration of Justice Law (Jamaica, cap. 421).
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) In principle all land in the Cayman Islands belonged to the Government subject only to such estates as might have been granted to persons subsequent to its settlement as a colony. Ownership by the Government was the natural consequence of the introduction of the common law of England by the first settlers of the Islands. Moreover, although it was acknowledged that the Government customarily took rocks and stones for its construction work from privately-owned lands, it was clear in this case that it had been using this site as a source of material for repair throughout the Islands for more than 30 years and had taken (without objection from the appellants) a substantially greater quantity of rock from it than it would normally take from privately-owned land. Since this was the only use of which the land was capable and there was no evidence of its ever having been occupied by anyone, the acts proved by the Government constituted sufficient evidence of its possession of the land for a longer period of time than that required by law to prove ownership. In contrast, the appellants had failed to establish any documentary title to the land. Consequently, the court would confirm both the order vesting the fee simple in the Government and the order for damages for trespass made against the appellants. The appeal would therefore be dismissed (page 45, line 41 page 46, line 6; page 46, lines 1838; page 48, line 16 page 49, line 26; page 50, line 34 page 51, line 5).
(2) Section 56 of the Cayman Islands Administration of Justice Law (Jamaica, cap. 421) did not apply since it concerned the Crowns right to claim land from a person in possession without title or right of occupation. In this case the appellants were not in possession of the land; they were attempting to establish possession when the Crown promptly took action and claimed that it was itself in possession and that the appellants were trespassers (page 49, lines 2736).
| DUFFUS, Ag. P.: This appeal has been an extremely interest- | |
| ing one. It arises from the judgment of the learned judge of the | |
| Grand Court of the Cayman Islands delivered by him on July 28th, | |
| 1961 in an action brought by the Administrator of the Cayman | |
| 20 | Islands against the appellants, Doris Wood Levy and Una Wood |
| Ebanks. The action was also against Vernon Dixon and Benjamin | |
| Darlington McLean but there was a finding of the learned judge in | |
| favour of Dixon and McLean and there has been no appeal in | |
| respect thereof. | |
| 25 | The claim by the Administrator is set out at some length in his |
| statement of claim. The plaintiff sued as the |
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Companies Act (2023 Revision) and HQP Corporation Ltd (in Official Liquidation)
...thus untenable.” 31 The Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Duffus Ag P, Lewis JA and Moody Ag JA) in Levy v Administrator of the Cayman Islands 1952–79 CILR 42 on 23 April 1963 dealt with arguments as to the introduction of the common law of England into the Cayman Islands by the original settlers......
-
The Companies Act (2023 Revision) and HQP Corporation Ltd (in official liquidation)
...thus untenable.” 31 The Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Duffus Ag P, Lewis JA and Moody Ag JA) in Levy v Administrator of the Cayman Islands 1952–79 CILR 42 on 23 April 1963 dealt with arguments as to the introduction of the common law of England into the Cayman Islands by the original settlers......
-
Eden v R
... ... Case cited: (1) Levy v. Administrator , 1952–79 CILR 42 , applied. Legislation construed: Land Adjudication Law, 1971 (Law 20 of 1971), s.4(1): ... ...