La Baia Ltd v Hughes

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Hariprashad-Charles, J.
• Judgment Date: 05 February 2002
• Neutral Citation: AI 2002 HC 4
• Docket Number: 27 of 2001
• Date: 05 February 2002

High Court

Hariprashad-Charles, J.

27 of 2001

La Baia Limited

and

Hughes

Appearances:

Mr. Kenneth G. Porter and Mrs. Cora Richardson for the claimant.

Mr. Elson Gaskin for the defendant.

Injunction - Application for an injunction — Grounds for the grant of an injunction — Damages would not be a sufficient remedy — Balance of convenience dictates that the status quo be maintained until all the rights of the parties have been determined — Injunction granted.

Hariprashad-Charles, J.

1 On 18th day of April 2001, the claimant filed a Summons “without notice” for an Injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants or agents from conducting further construction activities of any nature whatsoever on the property known as Registration Section: West End Block 17709B Parcel 23 (hereinafter called “The Property”). On 8th day of June 2001, the defendant caused to be filed an Entry of Appearance. On 30th day of July last year, the matter was heard “With Notice” on the basis of written submissions which were presented to the Court.

THE CLAIMANT'S PLEADED CASE

2 On or about 3rd day of March 1983, the claimant Company entered into an agreement with one Edward Richardson for the purchase of “The Property” and on 28th day of May 1986, a further agreement confirming payment of the full purchase price was executed between the said parties. Edward Richardson, the son and sole beneficiary of Isaac Richardson, the registered proprietor of “The Property” at the time entered into the agreement and accepted funds with the full consent and understanding of George Emmanuel Richardson who was the personal representative of the estate of Isaac Richardson.

3 The claimant took immediate steps to register “The Property” in its name but required an Aliens Landholding Licence to do so. The claimant applied to the Government for the said Licence which was not granted. As a consequence, the claimant was unable to register “The property” in its name. However, in an attempt to protect its interest, the claimant and George Emmanuel Richardson agreed for the claimant to have the benefit of a charge on “The Property” through Caldwell Corporation Limited. On 2nd day of September 1986, a registered charge was executed in favour of the said Caldwell Corporation Limited.

4 Approximately two months after the charge was registered, George Emmanuel Richardson passed away. The estate of Isaac Richardson was thereafter sought to be administered by the defendant through his lawful Attorney, one Louis Hodge and “The Property” was transferred to the defendant upon registration by transmission on or about 12th day of January 1996.

5 At paragraph 6 of its affidavit, the claimant alleges that despite having knowledge of the agreement for the sale of “The Property” and the charge thereon, the defendant still caused “The Property” to be registered in his name.

6 In or about the month of March 2001, the defendant commenced construction of a dwelling house on “The Property.” The claimant seeks an interlocutory injunction to halt further construction works.

7 It is somewhat startling that the enthusiastic Mr. Gaskin, counsel for the defendant has not yet filed a Defence to the action. Suffice it to say, he vigorously opposes the application for an interlocutory injunction for the following reasons:

• (1) That the claimant seeks specific performance of contracts made as far back as 3rd day of March 1983 and 28th day of May 1986. The defendant argues that section 4(7) of the Limitation Act, Cap. 45 of the Revised laws of Anguilla 1961 provides that the limitation period of six years with respect to claims founded on contract do not apply to claims for specific performance except by analogy. The claimant maintains that the Limitation Act does not apply to the claimant's claim — the claim being in the nature of an equitable relief for specific performance.

• (2) By virtue of sections 80 and 117 of The Registered Land Ordinance, 1974, only the registered proprietor of land can convey it. The claimant contends that section 27 of the said Ordinance is applicable and that the defendant holds the land subject to the unregistered rights of the claimant and/or Caldwell Corporation.

  ...