Paradise Beach & Transportation Company Ltd v Price-Robinson
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1968 |
| Date | 1968 |
| Year | 1968 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Bahama Islands - Limitation of Action - Land - Co-tenants - Original possession by two of a number of co-tenants not wrongful - Possession continued over 20 years - Whether possession for their own benefit - Whether time had run against other co-tenants barring their claim -
By his will dated November 22, 1912, a testator devised his estate to his children and grandchildren as tenants in common. He died on October 23, 1913. During his lifetime his two daughters, R. and V., farmed the estate on his behalf, so that their possession of the land was during his lifetime his possession. After his death R. and V. carried on farming the land but only by day until sometime in the early 1920s, when they erected a house on the land. They were thus in exclusive possession throughout quite rightly from 1913 until their deaths in 1962 and since then by their successors in title, the respondents. The appellants established a paper title to an undivided share in the land comprised in the testator's estate. Their predecessors had never entered into possession of the land. In 1963 the appellants brought the present claim against the respondents for their undivided share on the ground that R. and V. had committed no wrong by farming all the land, and therefore time had not started to run in favour of R. and V. The Supreme Court of the Bahamas (Scarr J.) held that R. and V. were in possession for their own use and benefit and they and their successors had been in exclusive possession of the land since the death of the testator, or for more than twenty years before action brought; and that, accordingly, the appellants' title was barred by the Real Property Limitation (No. 1) Act, 1833, and the Real Property Limitation (1874) Act, which were in the same terms as the
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that where the right of entry had accrued more than twenty years before action was brought (here it accrued in 1913), the co-tenants' claim was barred and their title was extinguished whatever be the nature of their co-tenants' possession (post, p. 880D–E).
(2) That the qualification under section 12 of the Act of 1833 that the “separate possessions” only started when the occupation was for “his or her own benefit” was primarily a question of fact, and to establish an occupation within the ambit of that qualification required some proof of agency, trusteeship or acknowledgement of title on the part of those in possession (post, pp. 880G–H–881A).
(3) That the finding of fact that R. and V. were in possession for their own use and benefit was correct and that, accordingly, the appellants' claim was barred by the Acts of 1833 and 1874, and their title was extinguished by section 34 of the Act of 1833 (post, p. 881A, E.)
APPEAL (No. 40 of 1964) from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Bahama Islands, Equity Side (Scarr, J.) (December 19, 1963) dismissing the petition of the appellants, Paradise Beach and Transportation Co. Ltd., Beach Head Ltd., and the four children of John Burrows (Cousin John) (died 1939), Eleanor Parroti, Joycelyn Moxey, Mizpah Burrows and Frederick Burrows, presented under the
The entirety of the land in dispute was vested in John Alexander Burrows on his death on October 23, 1913, and devolved under the terms of his will dated November 22, 1912. The testator devised his real estate, as to one third, to his wife Elizabeth (who died on May 2, 1918) for life and after her death to his grandsons Percy Webb and Clarence Asgin as tenants in common, and, as to the other two thirds, to seven of his children, Nehemiah Burrows, Joseph Burrows, Roseliza Elizabeth Price, Victoria Louise Hanna, Eliza Hall, Veronica Murray and Miriam Stuart to be held by them as tenants in common. The children and grandchildren were now all dead. The respondents to the petition were (1) Cyril Price-Robinson (as representative of the devisees under the will of Victoria Louise Hanna), and (2) Beatrice Louise Lightbourn and (3) Edith Augusta Price (as devisees of Roseliza Elizabeth Price).
The facts and statutory provisions appear fully from the judgment.
1967. October 19, 23, 24, 26.
J. A. R. Finlay for the appellants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Gerald Davies for the appellant No. 2.
K. W. Rubin for the respondents.
The following cases in addition to those referred to in the judgment were cited in argument: Irish Land Commission v. GrantF1; Tidball v. JamesF2; Glyn v. HowellF3; Smith v. LloydF4; Trustees Executors & Agency Co. Ltd. v. ShortF5; Leigh v. Jack.F6
1968. January 22. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD UPJOHN.
This is an appeal from the judgment delivered on December 19, 1963, of Scarr J. in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas, Equity Side, whereby he dismissed the appellants' claim under the
Until the island was developed recently the land in question was very poor, as the learned judge said in the course of his judgment “it was mostly coral rock with only pockets of soil and from the monetary point of view it was, prior to the last war, practically worthless.” Their Lordships have been informed that it is now very valuable.
The petitioners...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Freckleton (Valerie Patricia) v Winston Earl Freckleton
...of Appeal of England and Wales have authoritatively laid down the applicable law in a number of cases. These are Paradise Beach Transportation Company v Cyril Price Robinson [1968] A.C. 1072 PC ("Paradise"), Wills v Wills 64 W.I.R. 176 PC ("Wills"), J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v Graham [2003] ......
-
Wills v Elma Roselina Wills
...on her own behalf. 19 The appellant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Lord Upjohn in Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd and Others vs. Cyril Price Robinson and Others [1968] A.C. 1072 in which it was held on the Interpretation of the Bahamian Statute similar to the Jamaica ......
-
Wood v Wood
...applied. (3) Nepean v. Doe d. KnightENR(1837), 2 M. & W. 894; 150 E.R. 697. (4) Paradise Beach & Transp. Co. Ltd. v. Price-Robinson, [1968] A.C. 1072; [1968] 1 All E.R. 530, applied. Legislation construed: Limitation of Actions Law (Laws of the Cayman Islands, 1963, cap. 86), s.3: The relev......
-
Recreational Holdings (Jamaica) Ltd v Carl Lazarus & Registrar of Titles
...result that one co-proprietor can in a proper case establish a claim for adverse possession against the others (see Paradise Beach & Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson [1968] AC 1072 and Wills v Wills ). I will come back to this point in due course (see para [59] below.) 46 To this trio......