Roulstone v Panton
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | (Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L.C., Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Sir Clifford Richmond) |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1979 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 27 July 1979 |
(Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L.C., Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Sir Clifford Richmond)
J.F. Mummery for the appellant;
N. Murray for the respondent.
(1) Smith v. McField, 195279 CILR 108.
Cayman Islands (Appeal to Privy Council) Order 1965 (S.I. 1965/1862), s.5: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 372, line 40 page 373, line 9.
s.10: (1) The record may be printed in Jamaica or in the Islands or in England . . . .
(2) Where the record is printed in Jamaica or in the Islands, the Registrar shall at the expense of the appellant, transmit to the Registrar of the Privy Council forty copies of such record . . . .
(3) Where the record is to be printed or duplicated in England, the Registrar shall, at the expense of the appellant, transmit to the Registrar of the Privy Council one certified copy of such record . . ..
Land Adjudication Law, 1971 (Law 20 of 1971), s.23:
(1) Any person . . . who is aggrieved by any act or decision of the Adjudicator and desires to question it . . . on the ground that it is erroneous in point of law or on the ground of failure to comply with any procedural requirement of this Law, may appeal to the Court
. . .
(3) Any person . . . who is aggrieved by an order or decision of the Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Judicature (Administration of Justice) Law governing appeals in civil proceedings (but restricted to the matters stated in sub-section (1)) . . . .
Courts-Judicial Committee of Privy Council-appeals from Court of Appeal-conditional leave to appeal-condition of giving security within 90 days under Cayman Islands (Appeal to Privy Council) Order 1965, s.5(a) unalterable-time for observing any other condition under s.5(b) in discretion of court
Courts-Judicial Committee of Privy Council-appeals from Court of Appeal-transmission of record-ultra vires Court of Appeal to require appellant himself to despatch record to England-duty under Cayman Islands (Appeal to Privy Council) Order 1965, s.10 to supply Registrar of Court of Appeal with copy and then for Registrar to despatch-failure of Registrar to despatch within prescribed period not attributable to appellant if copy supplied to Registrar in time
The respondent appealed to the Grand Court from a decision of the Land Adjudication Tribunal which dismissed his claim to certain lands in favour of the appellant.
The appellant and the deceased (of whose estate the respondent was the administrator) were lifelong friends who purchased together at various times several parcels of land, some of the conveyances of which were expressed as being to them as joint tenants. There was evidence that they sold one parcel of land but no evidence of how this particular parcel came to belong to them or what happened to the proceeds of sale, nor was there any evidence that the lands they purchased were put to any use whatsoever.
After the death intestate of the deceased, the respondent claimed half the lands as belonging to his estate. He submitted to the Land Adjudication Tribunal that the lands were purchased by the two parties but that the appellant had no right of ownership over the entire property and could claim only a one-half interest to reflect her beneficial interest as a tenant in common. The appellant submitted that she had become by survivorship the sole legal and beneficial owner of the land.
The tribunal ruled that the deceased had intended and expected that the right of survivorship of a joint tenant would prevail and ruled in favour of the appellant. This decision was affirmed on appeal to the Grand Court (Moody, J.) but was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal.
The appellant gave notice of appeal and was granted conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, a condition being that she do procure the preparation of the record and despatch them [sic] to England within 120 days of the date of this order. The appellant prepared and supplied the record in good time to the Registrar of the court as she was required to do but, due to his failure to transmit the record within the 120 days, she was granted final leave to appeal and a further extension of time by the Court of Appeal.
In the further appeal, the respondent submitted as a preliminary point that there was no jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal under the Cayman Islands (Appeal to Privy Council) Order 1965 to grant final leave to appeal or to extend the period of 120 days either expressly or implicitly. On the substantive issues, both parties repeated the submissions made before the tribunal.
Held, allowing the appeal:
(1) The Court of Appeal was empowered by the Cayman Islands (Appeal to Privy Council) Order 1965 to give conditional leave to appeal in either of two procedural stages. In the first instance, under s.5(a), it could grant leave upon the condition stated (the appellant giving security for due prosecution of the appeal and for costs) for a maximum period of 90 days and could not extend that period. In the second instance, under s.5(b), it was free to determine what period was to regulate the condition under that paragraph (such other conditions [as to time] . . . as the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may think it reasonable to impose) and could re-fix the period either expressly or implicitly on or before granting final leave. In any event there appeared to have been no need to grant the appellant an extension of time since she had complied with the terms of the court order as far as she could by preparing the record and supplying it to the Registrar, who under s.10 was responsible for its despatch to England (page 372, line 37 page 374, line 4).
(2) Since the conveyances of the legal estates were made to the two parties as joint tenants, it was for those who asserted a beneficial tenancy in common to establish it as resulting either from evidence of intention to that effect, from evidence of circumstances surrounding the acquisition in joint names which in equity would be regarded as sufficient justification for departing from the situation at law, or from evidence that a subsequent severance of the beneficial interest in the joint tenancy had occurred. For example, the receipt and retention by each tenant of half of the proceeds of any sale would be consistent with a joint tenancy of the land in equity and a severance as to the proceeds of sale, or evidence that they had contributed unequally to the purchase price, would have been a ground for holding against a beneficial joint tenancy. It was therefore a question of fact and inference from the facts whether on the occasions of the purchases the parties intended their beneficial interests to depart from their legal interests. The evidence
before the Land Adjudication Tribunal did not support the conclusion that they did. The tribunal had rejected the suggestion that the parties had been operating as business partners, which in the circumstances was the only evidence that could have established that their interests in equity were other than their interests in law. Not only had the tribunal reached the proper conclusion on the facts but since in this case there was no appeal from its decision save on a point of law, the respondent had failed to establish any grounds for appeal from it. The appellants appeal would therefore be allowed (page 374, lines 517; page 375, line 36 page 376, line 10; page 380, lines 325).
| LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, delivering the judgment | |
| of the Board: This appeal is from a judgment dated September | |
| 40 | 20th, 1976 of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Watkins, Ag. J.A. |
| and Swaby, J.A., Robinson, P. dissenting), which allowed an |
| appeal from a judgment in November 1973 of the Grand Court of | |
| the Cayman Islands. The question of substance is whether the | |
| beneficial interests in certain parcels of land conveyed to the | |
| appellant and the late Olive Hinds jointly on purchases were | |
| 5 | those of joint tenants, so that on the death of Hinds in September |
| 1972 intestate the appellant became by survivorship the sole legal | |
| and beneficial owner of the lands, or whether their beneficial | |
| interests were those of tenants in common. It is to be observed | |
| that if the answer is that on the purchases they became beneficial | |
| 10 | joint tenants there is no suggestion that there was ever a severance |
| of that beneficial joint tenancy. | |
| The appropriate tribunal under the Land Adjudication Law, | |
| 1971, of the Cayman Islands decided in favour of the present | |
| appellant that they were beneficial joint tenants. The Grand Court | |
| 15 | upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal by a majority (Robin- |
| son, P. dissenting) reversed it, holding that they were beneficial | |
| tenants in common in equal shares. | |
| Before embarking further on the matter their Lordships deal | |
| with a |
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BETWEEN: Dianne Patrice Fleiger Petitioner v Frank George Fleiger (Deceased) Respondent Michele Lenore Fleiger as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank George Fleiger (Deceased) Applicant
...any joint tenancy was split, and to make a declaration to that effect. 60 For completeness, reference is made to Roulstone v Panton [ 1952–79 CILR 369], a case brought by an estate claiming a beneficial interest in plots of land bought by two friends which confirms that the question of bene......
-
Between: Dianne Patrice Fleiger Petitioner v Frank George Fleiger (Deceased) Respondent Michele Lenore Fleiger as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank George Fleiger (Deceased) Applicant
...any joint tenancy was split, and to make a declaration to that effect. 60 For completeness, reference is made to Roulstone v Panton [ 1952–79 CILR 369], a case brought by an estate claiming a beneficial interest in plots of land bought by two friends which confirms that the question of bene......
-
Marlene Samuels v Michael McLaughlin
...applied by the Privy Council in an appeal originating from this Court in Roulston v Panton (Administrator of the Estate of O. Hinds) 1952–79 CILR 369. There, two lifelong friends had purchased together at various times several parcels of land, some of the conveyances of which were expressed......
-
Marlene Samuels First Plaintiff Christaline McLaughlin Second Plaintiff v Michael McLaughlin Defendant
...were applied by the Privy Council in an appeal originating from this Court inRoulston v Panton (Administrator of the Estate of O. Hinds) 1952–79 CILR 369. There, two lifelong friends had purchased together at various times several parcels of land, some of the conveyances of which were expre......