Black Immigrant Daily News
The Grand Court has ruled that defendants Samuel Reid and Mervelin Reid must vacate and give up to Lookout Holdings Ltd a parcel of land it developed allegedly with permission.
The ruling was made by Acting Grand Court Judge Kirsty-Ann Gunn, in a judgement dated February 8, 2023.
According to the judgement — following the development of land by the Reids (the Defendants) allegedly without permission of the owner, Lookout Holdings Ltd (the Plaintiff”) or the Central Planning Authority, and following the alleged breach of a deposit agreement — the defendants must vacate and give up to Lookout Holdings Ltd vacant possession of the land within 28 days of the date of the judgment.
The judgment follows differences in accounts by the parties as to whether amounts due to Lookout Holdings Ltd. were paid on time or at all by the Defendants in accordance with a deposit agreement and differences in explanations between the parties to the Grand Court whether there was permission to build a temporary structure on the property.
Regarding the deposit agreement, the judgment noted:
The Defendants case is that they have always complied with any and all agreements between the parties and that Lookout’s witnesses have conspired against them in order to evict them… The Defendants also opined that maybe Lookout was motivated to terminate by a desire to sell the land at a higher price.
Concerning this, the judge’s final findings were as follows:
My final conclusion is that the Plaintiff validly terminated the Deposit Agreement in April 2019 for breach of terms. I am in fact sure that in August 2019, in order to reinstate the deposit agreement, the Defendants agreed to:
(a) pay the monthly arrears of $1,000 immediately which they did not.
(b) pay the full purchase price by September 2019 and again by September 2020, which they did not;
(c) extend the house they had erected to 2,000 square feet, which they did not;
(d) keep the property in good condition which they did not;
(e) remove the vehicles stored at the property which they did not; and
(f) provide architectural drawings which they did not.
Regarding the construction of a temporary building on the land, the judgment noted:
Mr Broadbent and Ms Hurlston both assert that the Defendants only had a license to visit parcel 235 and so there was no permission from Lookout to build on the land.
The Defendants evidence was that Ms Hurlston had encouraged them from an early stage to build a dwelling and so they decided to fill the land and erect a temporary structure to live in.
Mr Reid gave evidence that other purchasers of Lookout land were told the same thing and multiple purchasers had built on their parcels.
Mr Reid made it clear that the structure he erected was only intended to be a temporary residence until he could build his “dream home” on the same piece of land.
The judge found, however, that “despite making several unsolicited lumpsum payments, the Defendants have no rights over the land.”
“It is most unfortunate that the Defendants chose to go against the terms of their deposit agreement and spent their hard-earned money on filling the land and building a small dwelling but in the end, they knew they should not have done so. It is a misfortune of their own making,” the judge continued.
The judge explained further:
I have considered whether it is fair to require the Defendants to surrender the parcel when they have spent thousands of dollars filling the land and building their temporary home. However, the Defendants have not come to these proceedings with clean hands. They developed the land without permission of the owner or the Central Planning Authority and so they cannot now make a claim in equity.
The judge concluded:
I find that the Defendants never had a right to occupy the land in the first place.
I am satisfied that Lookout properly sought to exercise that right to terminate by serving the termination letter in April 2019. The Defendants having failed to comply with the conditions of its reinstatement agreed to both in August 2019 and July 2020 Lookout has properly exercised its right to terminate and seek vacant possession.
Consequently, the Defendants are in illegal possession of the land.
The Defendants were advised that they may appeal the decision of the Grand Court within 14 days of the order being entered.
NewsAmericasNow.com
Discussion about this post