Cayman Shores Development Ltd and another (Respondents) v The Proprietors, Strata Plan No.79 (known as Lion's Court) and others (Appellants) (Cayman Islands)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2023/0097

Jurisdiction

Cayman Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) The Proprietors, Strata Plan No.79 (known as Lion's Court),

(2) Damian Pentney,

(3) Filbert Holdings III Ltd,

(4) Garry M Southway and Karen A Southway, (5) Bryan Murphy and Kathleen Murphy

Respondent(s)

(1) Cayman Shores Development Ltd, (2) Palm Sunshine Ltd

The Registrar of the Lands

White Dove International Ltd

Issue

Are rights to play golf, tennis and to enjoy facilities on certain land in Grand Cayman and associated restrictive agreements binding upon the current owners of that land?

Facts

The appellants are the current owners of several parcels of land. The respondents are companies involved in the ownership and development of land in the Cayman Islands. The area of land in dispute was previously known as the Britannia Resort (the “Resort”). It comprised, so far as is relevant, a hotel (the “Hotel”), two tennis courts (the “Tennis Courts”), beach facilities (the “Beach Facilities”), three residential developments (including Lion’s Court) (the “Strata Developments”) and vacant land sold for residential development (the “Britannia Estates”). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, phased development of the Strata Developments was carried out. Use of the Hotel’s facilities and the Golf Course was used as an attraction for purchasers. The first set of instruments were entered into in May 1992. The parties were (i) the developers, (ii) the owner of the Hotel, Tennis Courts, Beach Facilities and Golf Course, and (iii) the owners of the Strata Developments. As further development of the Resort took place, broadly similar instruments were entered into (the “Instruments”). The terms of the Instruments purported to grant the appellants rights to access the Beach Facilities, Golf Course and Tennis Courts. The Instruments were entered into the Land Register on the basis they contained “Restrictive Agreements”. In 2003, the land containing the Hotel and the Golf Course was sold. In 2004, a hurricane damaged the Hotel, which was never restored and is now derelict. With the exception of the Tennis Courts, the other facilities were restored. Between 2005 and 2007, a four-lane highway was constructed through the Resort. As a result, part of the Tennis Courts were demolished and access to the Beach Facilities from the Resort became more difficult, as it involved crossing the four lane road. In May 2016, the respondents purchased the land with the Tennis Courts, Golf Course and Beach Facilities. They appellants were informed that plans were being made for the development of some of the land and were offered a licence to use the Beach Facilities and Golf Course. The respondents argued that they already had rights to use the Beach Facilities and Golf Courses pursuant to the Instruments. The appellants commenced legal proceedings to determine the legal position. The trial judge found in favour of the appellants, holding that the respondents had no property rights. The respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.