Lake et Al v Anthony

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Hewlett, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1978
• Neutral Citation: VG 1978 HC 4
• Docket Number: No. 33 of 1977
• Date: 12 May 1978

High Court of Justice

Hewlett, J

No. 33 of 1977

Lake et al

and

Anthony

Appearances:

D. Bryon for the plaintiffs and G. Farara with him

McW. Todman for the defendant

Tort - Damages — Breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment

Facts: Defendant bought land and sold portions to the plaintiff and another. Plaintiff entered into possession had plans of intended structure drawn and approved, area cleared and bulldozed, construction of foundation and cistern undertaken. Dispute between defendant and family of original owner of land over the land sold to and occupied by the plaintiffs. Established by court action that plaintiff had been put in possession of land belonging to others. Defendant had right to convey only small portion of land occupied by plaintiff. Only corner of foundation on part of third parties land. Plaintiff put in possession of new land.

Held: Plaintiffs disturbed in quiet enjoyment of the land they had purchased. Judgment for plaintiff of damages of $750.00.

Hewlett, J.

1 David Fonseca owned Pockwood Pond Estates. On his death, his four children, Manville, Naomi, Margaret and Eileen, inherited the estate, but before his death David Fonseca had sold a portion of the said estate to the defendant and the defendant in turn sold portions to Roosevelt Smith and the plaintiffs.

2 Having entered into possession, the plaintiffs set about to build a home on said portion of land. They caused plans of the intended structure to be prepared and approved at a cost of $150.00. The area was cleared and bulldozed at a cost of $1,700.00 and the construction of the foundation and cistern was undertaken. The outlay for this work had amounted to $4,450.00 when the work was halted because of a land dispute that arose between the Fonseca family and the defendant over the land sold to and occupied by the plaintiffs.

3 The matter reached the court, and to give effect to the judgment of the court certain surveys were carried out which established that the plaintiffs had in fact been put by the defendant in possession of land belonging to Naomi Grigg (nee Fonseca) and Margaret Moron (nee Fonseca). Only a small portion occupied by the plaintiffs did the defendant have a right to convey but it so happened that the foundations built by the plaintiffs, except for a corner tip, fell on this part of the land. As to what transpired after this discovery, the court found itself unable to rely on the evidence as given by the parties as it was patently obvious that they had all coloured their evidence to suit their own interests. But there were two witnesses, namely Winfield Sergeant and Norman Grigg (the husband o! Naomi Grigg), on whim the court could and did rely together with a copy of a letter made available and produced by consent.

4 Grigg explained that following the judge's ruling he had put a proposition to the parties to the effect that they could retain what they held provided the defendant compensated him with tend in another area. To this he never got a reply from the plaintiffs but be did get one from Edward Anker, a licensed surveyor acting on behalf of the defendant, which indicated that the defendant was not interested as the parties were making other arrangements, which arrangements obviously were that the defendant would provide the plaintiffs with another portion of his land situated down in the flat...