Spindrift Ltd v Sile Bay Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 June 1999
• Neutral Citation: AI 1999 HC 5
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 59 of 1999
• Date: 16 June 1999

High Court

Saunders, J.

Civil Suit No. 59 of 1999

Spindrift Limited

and

Sile Bay Company Limited

Appearances:

Mr. I. D. Mitchell Q.C. for the plaintiff/applicant

Mr. J. Wigley for the defendant/respondent

Injunction - Interim injunction sought to restrain company from negotiating any contract for sale of property.

Facts: Agreement to transfer property — Dispute over size of property — Injunction sought to prevent transfer of property to a third party before dispute resolved.

Held: Injunction granted but not in form applied for.

Saunders, J.

1 The plaintiff company (“Spindrift”) claims to be the beneficial owner of lands located at Sile Bay in Anguilla. These lands encompass certain hotel premises. In this ruling I will refer to the entirety of the lands, including the hotel structure, as “the property”. The defendant company (hereinafter, “Sile Bay”) is the registered owner of the property.

2 The substantive action was brought by Spindrift for specific performance of an agreement. Spindrift alleges that Sile Bay had agreed to transfer the property to Spindrift. Sile Bay does not appear to deny the existence of some agreement. The dispute turns on one issue. The respective parties do not agree on the extent of what comprises the property. Counsel for Spindrift asserts that the property comprises five acres. The defence alleges that it only covers the lands upon which the physical hotel structures rest i.e. approximately one and one half acres.

3 There is some apprehension that before this dispute can be resolved Sile Bay might dispose of some or all of the property by sale. Sile Bay can do so because the property is still registered in its name. An application was therefore made by Spindrift seeking an interim injunction to restrain Sile Bay from negotiating any contract or purporting to negotiate any contract with any person for the sale of the property.

4 At first blush it appeared to me that almost as a matter of course this injunction ought to be granted as prayed for. Two related sets of circumstances gave me pause however. The first was the ownership structure of the two companies in litigation. The second was the scope of the actual restraining order that was sought. I decided to reserve my ruling.

5 The pleadings and the affidavits before me disclose that the owners or beneficial owners of all the shares in Sile Bay and also of the vast majority of shares in Spindrift are the...