Keith Rolle and another (Respondents) v Raymond Meadows (Appellant)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0012

Parties

Appellant(s)

Raymond Meadows

Respondent(s)

(1) Keith Rolle, (2) Dorothea Avril Rolle

Issue

Is the Appellant entitled to an order for possession of the disputed land on the basis that the Respondents are trespassers who have not acquired a possessory title by adverse possession?

Facts

This case concerns a claim brought by the Appellant against the Respondents regarding a disputed strip of land. The Appellant and Respondents are adjacent landowners. In 2003, the Respondents purchased a parcel of land and constructed a fence and roadway along what they thought was the southern boundary. At the time, the land to the south of the fence was vacant. In 2017, the Appellant acquired a parcel of land to the south of the Respondents’ property; a survey determined that the fence and roadway were on the Appellant’s property. On 30 March 2017, the Appellant met with the First Respondent and advised him of this. In July 2017, the Appellant issued a Writ against the Respondents. The trial judge found that the Respondents had unlawfully intruded on the Appellant’s land, rejected their defence of adverse possession, and ordered them to deliver possession of the disputed land to the Appellant. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeal, finding that the defence of adverse possession could be sustained. The Court of Appeal granted the Appellant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The Appellant now appeals to the Privy Council.