Judgment — canary

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Cause No. PC 0020/1988

Between

Edward Rothnie Ebanks

- v -

Hope Glidden Borden - Judgment

Before
Lord Templeman

Judgment delivered 1990-01-29

<doc> Edward
Ebanks
(as
joint
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Henry
London
Ebanks
-
Deceased)
Gilden
Borden
(as
joint
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Henry
London
Ebanks
-
Deceased)
Appellant
Respondent
JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL CO
OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL DELIVERED IN
29TH JANUARY 1990
Present at the hearing:-
LORD KEITH OF KINKEL
LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK
LORD TEMPLEMAN
LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY
LORD LOWRY
[Delivered by Lord Templeman]
Henry London Ebanks ('the testator')
December 1935, was entitled to several
in the Island of Grand Cayman. Two p
OMMITTEE
THE
who died on 3rd
parcels of land
parcels of land.
Known as Elmslies and Little Tom Cliff, I
which was directed to be held by his
trustees, his widow Martha and his son
Donald, upon trust for the testator's
1934 probate of the will of the testator
including the appellant Edward Rothnie.
Charles. In these proceedings the ap-
evidence that there was an informal famil-
about the year 1934 when the appellant
leven, received the allotment of Elms
Ton Cliff as the whole or part of his
residue. Alternatively the appellant died on 2nd January 1958 and the re-
went into adverse possession of Elmslies
Clint and acquired title by adverse pose-
Gilden Borden is his personal repre-
died on 2nd January 1958 and the re-
testator's widow Martha died in 1973.
tion be made to a purchaser of Elmslies
Cliff the appellant and the respondent,
Elm into residue
executors and
as Charles and
six named sons
was granted to
plaint gave oral
y arrangement
it, then about
lies and Little
claimed that the
and Little Tom
ssion. Charles
spondent Hope
entative. The
To enable title
and Little Tom
in July August </doc>

<doc> 1981, took of
In these I
absolutely e
Cliff and th
are part of
the Grand
Justice did
an informal
evidence of
the two
administrators.
2
at letters of administration of the estate of
with the will annexed.
proceedings the appellant claims that he is
entitled in equity to Elmslies and Little Tom
e respondent claims that those properties
the unadministered estate of the testator.
was tried by Sir John Summerfield, C.J. in
Court of the Cayman Islands. The Chief
not believe the appellant's oral evidence of
family arrangement and decided that the
appellee possession was too vague and
a respondent be registered as proprietors of
pieces of land in their capacity as
rs of the estate of the testator. The
Court of Appeal (J.A) upheld
appeals to t
of the Board
accordance with
Bihabati D.
A.C. 508,
evidence on
findings wh
Mr. Schar
very persua-
17th December.
testator.
Absalom Yard was s
Edward R.
Scharschmidt
boundary of
as Elmslies.
conveyance.
Scharschmidt [Zacca P.] Telford Georges and Mr
the Chief Justice. The appellant, who now
the Board, is faced with concurrent findings
in given by Lord Trankerton in Smith v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy [1946]
must satisfy the Board that there was no
which the court below could arrive at their
schmidt, who put the case for the appellant
ch essentially dealt with matters of fact.
sively, drew attention to a conveyance dated
per 1949 by Martha the widow of the
The conveyance was of land known as
atec in the conveyance to be 'the land of
and the western boundary of Absalom
the Ebanks' . the appellant. Mr.
it concerned their Lordships that the western
Absalom Yard was in fact the land known
The testator's son Charles attested this
also drew attention to an agreement of
and is said to have prepared it. Mr.
1974 which
and which
partitioned
lands com-
Both these
claim of the
division of
and Little T
claims under
by a volunta
appellant be
given to th
that Little T
from the res
the appellant.
In these
examination,
it is noted that Charles had 'informally
received that Charles had 'informally
the land of the testator and granted the
set in the agreement to David and Harvey.
documents, it was submitted, supported the
on Cliff had been allotted to him.' But by
the Land Adjudication Law 1971, supported
ry declaration dated 28th October 1972, the
came registered as sole owner of Elmslies
from Cliff had been inherited by his mother
om Cliff on the basis that Elmslies had been
appellant by his mother Martha in 1948.
tator and she had given Little Tom Cliff to
in 1948.
proceedings, the appellant, in cross-
handed that he was not familiar with the </doc>

3
wording of the voluntary declaration and have been some mistake in the deed. M
submitted that the voluntary declaration professional advisers who were unacqu
facts and were only attempting to obtain the land which the appellant had inh
occupied. So far as adverse possession evidence was that the appellant went to
of twenty one, only returning to Grant month or two every three or four year
New York and latterly Miami. The act seemed to consist of marking the undeveloped land from time to time an
were carried out either by the appellant on his behalf or by the testator's widow,
and several witnesses were called be
that there may
. Scharschmidt was drafted by
ainted with the
a legal title to
erited and had
s concerned the
d Cayman for a
rs and lived in
s dispossession
by bararies of
or by somebody
whilst she was
y the appellant
and were cross-examined. The Chief impressed by the oral evidence of the a
the very full notes of evidence kept
Justice it is clear that both the issue
adverse possession were thoroughly tried
the satisfaction of the Chief Justice
ample evidence from which the Chie
entitled to reach his conclusion. The C
took, that view after another exam-
Lordships will humbly advise Her Ma
appeal ought to be dismissed. The app
the respondent's costs.

Cause Number	PC 0020/1988
Court	Privy Council (PC)
Judge	Lord Templeman
Parties	Edward Rothnie Ebanks v Hope Glidden Borden - Judgment
Judgment Date	1990-01-29
Subject	Informal family arrangement and equitable entitlement; Adverse possession; Concurrent findings of fact and appellate review
Filename (current)	90-01-29_edward_rothnie_ebankd_v_hope_glidden_borden.pdf
File MD5	b4def5938d0cf8631d23ec1ff7dc5dcb
Source pipeline	pdb
PDB record ID	1979
PDB URL	https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/90-01-29_edward_rothnie_ebankd_v_hope_glidden_borden.pdf

Edward Rothnie Ebanks v Hope Glidden Borden - Judgment

All PDF copies on file (1)

Processing-run history (1)