Anthony Armbrister and Another v Marion E Lightbourn and Another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Walker |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] UKPC 40 |
| Date | 11 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0034 of 2010 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2012] UKPC 40
Lord Walker
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath
Sir Stephen Sedley
Appeal No 0034 of 2010
Privy Council
Appellant
Miss Carolyn Walton
Miss Hannah Ilett
(Instructed by E P Toothe & Associates)
Respondent
James Dingemans QC
Timothy Eneas
(Bahamas Bar)
(Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)
Heard on 29–30 October 2012
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas in proceedings under the Quieting Titles Act 1959, Ch 393 ("the 1959 Act"). The original application was made over 30 years ago, by a petition presented on 15 March 1982 by two sisters, Marion E Lightbourn and Sheila M Mactaggart ("Mrs Mactaggart"), who were devisees under the will of their father, Herbert Arnold McKinney ("Mr McKinney"). On 5 July 1982 an adverse claim was made in the proceedings by Frances Fintel Armbrister ("Mrs Frances Armbrister"). During the protracted course of the proceedings Mrs Mactaggart and Mrs Frances Armbrister have died, as have two of Mrs Mactaggart's personal representatives. The parties are now Mrs Lightbourn and Robin Mactaggart Symonette (the surviving personal representative of Mrs Mactaggart) as respondents in the main appeal and Anthony Armbrister ("Anthony Armbrister") and his brother Cyril Armbrister (the personal representatives of Mrs Frances Armbrister) as appellants in the main appeal. There is also a cross-appeal in which their positions as appellants and respondents are reversed.
The documents before the Board were in some disarray, consisting of five agreed bundles, one bundle of documents (some from each side) which were not agreed, and a further bundle containing a notice of application filed on behalf of the appellants on 3 May 2011, together with the documents to which it relates. All except the last bundle have a single uniform system of pagination. To facilitate identification in the different bundles, page references are included in the Board's advice. With the helpful cooperation of counsel the need for argument about documents has been largely avoided.
The main appeal is concerned with title to an area of land, well over 400 acres in extent, on Cat Island. Cat Island lies between the islands of Eleuthera and San Salvador (confusingly, Cat Island was itself formerly called San Salvador). Cat Island is for the most part long and narrow in shape, with its length extending from the point nearest Eleuthera at the north-west to the point nearest San Salvador to the south-east. The land in question in the main appeal, the southern half of the Freeman Hall estate, is at Warren's Harbour on the east coast, not far from the south-east end of the island. It is referred to below as "Freeman Hall South". Its exact acreage is uncertain but that is not an issue in the appeal. In a conveyance dated 27 May 1895 ("the 1895 conveyance") [281–294] the Freeman Hall estate as a whole was described as 860 acres or thereabouts, but by a deed of partition dated 21 February 1899 [296–297] the southern part was described as extending to 440 acres (so that the acreage seems notto have been precisely split, possibly because the agricultural value of the southern part was lower). In the petition [004–005] the claim was put at 484.6 acres.
The cross-appeal is concerned with title to another area of land on Cat Island, 15 acres in extent. It was formerly part of what was called the Village Estate. It too is not far from the south-east end of the island, but is on the west coast. It is referred to below as "the 15 acres."
The trial judge (Jeanne Thompson J), after a three-day hearing in July 2006, gave a written ruling on 30 January 2007 granting the petitioners certificates of title in respect of each of the two disputed areas. The Court of Appeal, after hearing over four days between March and May 2009, gave judgment on 25 June 2009 allowing the adverse claimants' appeal in respect of the 15 acres (part of the Village Estate), but dismissed their appeal in respect of Freeman Hall South.
The trial judge had to consider a substantial volume of documentary evidence and affidavit evidence, and a limited amount of oral evidence (there was no oral evidence for the petitioners; for the adverse claimants there was oral evidence from Anthony Armbrister and two other witnesses). The principal issues for the Board are whether both courts below erred in their assessment of the evidence relating to Freeman Hall South; whether both courts below erred on an unusual point of law relating to the devolution of real property belonging to a dissolved body corporate ("the reverter point"); and which of the courts below was in error in construing the 1895 conveyance and assessing the evidence as to the 15 acres. In relation to the concurrent findings of the courts below on the first issue, Miss Walton (appearing for the adverse claimants) relies on the practice of the Judicial Committee in exceptionally reviewing concurrent findings where "there has been some miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure": Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd [1975] AC 464, 471.
The purpose of the 1959 Act is to provide a judicial process for the determination of disputes as to title to land in the Bahamas. The process is initiated by a petition presented by a claimant. The petition is advertised, and adverse claims may be made by rival claimants. The procedure is in the nature of a judicial inquiry and it ends in a judgment in rem which, subject to appeal, finally settles entitlement to the land, not merely as between the parties, but for all purposes. This judicial procedure meets an economic and social need in the Bahamas, where many of the outlying islands were, for much of the Commonwealth's history, sparsely populated and only sporadically cultivated. Much of the land belonged to landlords who were not permanently resident, and travel was slow. Parcels of land often had no clearly-defined boundaries based on comprehensive surveys. But while the 1959 Act meets an economic and social need, there has also been a warning from a lecturer, familiar with the 1959 Act both as a legislator and as a practising member of the bar, that bench and bar must be vigilant to prevent the statutory procedure being abused by "land thieves" (the Hon Paul L. Addersley in an address to the National Land Symposium on 17 March 2001). It is no accident that the Judicial Committee has over the years heard many appeals raising questions of title to land in the Bahamas, including Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson [1968] AC 1072, Ocean Estates Ltd v Pinder [1969] 2 AC 19, Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd [1975] AC 464, and Higgs v Leshel Maryas Investment Co Ltd [2009] UK PC 47.
Procedure under the 1959 Act is relatively informal. The strict rules of evidence do not apply. The procedure is comparable to that which applies on the investigation of title on an ordinary sale, out of court, under an open contract. Each rival claimant must prepare an abstract of title and adduce evidence in support of it. Section 8 of the 1959 Act provides:
"(1) The court in investigating the title may receive and act upon any evidence that is received by the court on a question of title, or any other evidence, whether the evidence is or is not admissible in law, if the evidence satisfies the court of the truth of the facts intended to be established thereby.
(2) It shall not be necessary to require a title to be deduced for a longer period than is mentioned in subsection (4) of section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act or to produce any evidence which by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act is dispensed with as between vendor and purchaser, or to produce or account for the originals of any recorded deeds, documents or instruments, unless the court otherwise directs.
(3) The evidence may be by affidavit or orally or in any other manner or form satisfactory to the court."
Section 3(3) and (4) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act provides as follows:
"(3) Recitals, statements and description of facts, matters and parties contained in deeds, instruments, Acts or declarations, twenty years old at the date of the contract, shall, unless and except so far as they shall be proved to be inaccurate, be taken to be sufficient evidence of truth of such facts, matters and descriptions.
(4) A purchaser of land shall not be entitled to require a title to be deduced for a period of more than thirty years, or for a period extending further back than a grant or lease by the Crown or a certificate of title granted by the court in accordance with the provisions of the Quieting Titles Act, whichever period shall be the shorter."
The qualification to subsection (3) is important. There may be evidence which casts doubt on the correctness of a recital. A striking example of this is provided by the conveyance dated 15 January 1944 ("the 1944 conveyance") [337–342] which is crucial to the petitioners' claim. It recites that Charles Walter Brownrigg ("Mr Brownrigg") was at his death in 1933 "seised and possessed in fee simple of the hereditaments hereinafter described" and goes on to give particulars of four areas of land totalling 911 acres which were sold for £240. The adverse claimants' case is that Mr Brownrigg could claim only a squatter's title to some of that land, and that as regards the 15 acres and Freeman Hall South he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bannerman Town, Millars and John Millars Eleuthera Association v Eleuthera Properties Ltd
...populated and only sporadically cultivated, as explained by Lord Walker, giving the advice of the Board in Armbrister v Lightbourn [2012] UKPC 40; [2013] 1 P & CR 17, at paras 7 and 2 The land in issue in these proceedings (“the Property”) is a tract comprising some 2,086.24 acres, lying on......
-
David Wood and Another v Edward Alexander Waddington
... ... [2007] 1 EGLR 78 , Piper v Wakeford [2008] EWCA Civ 1378 and Armbrister v Lightbourn [2013] 1 P&CR 248 at [46] ... 96 ... ...
-
Leafrealm Land Limited Against The City Of Edinburgh Council And The Raeburn Place Foundation And Raeburn Place Development Limited
...in detail. I would have accepted the defenders’ submission, under reference to the observations of Lord Walker in Armbister v Lightbourne [2012] UKPC 40, (2013) 1 P&CR 17 at paragraph 46 and Lord Kyllachy in Hetherington v Galt (1905) 7 F 706 at 713, that for the purposes of determining the......
-
Belitza Marling Sagaray Silva v Replay Destinations (Bah) Ltd
...was further amended which had not happened at the time of the termination or even at the time of the trial. Armbrister v Lightbourn [2012] UKPC 40 applied Scarfe v Adams [1981] 1 All E.R. 843 considered Pedriks v Grimaux [2021] EWHC 3448 (QB) considered Willson v Greene [1971] 1 W.L.R. ......