4 hours ago
1
Derek Achong
The Privy Council has been asked to clarify how property disputes should be resolved when more than one deed is registered for the same property.
On Tuesday, five Law Lords of the United Kingdom-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council heard submissions in the appeal at the UK Supreme Court Building in London, England, and reserved judgment.
The eventual ruling is expected to set a legal precedent for resolving future property disputes, including cases involving competing or potentially fraudulent deeds.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed in 2015 by Jim and Anna Marie Grant against Lerrie Bovell, from whom they agreed to purchase a property on St Lucien Road in Diego Martin.
After paying the $800,000 purchase price but before completing the transaction, the couple discovered a deed of assent for the property dated April 15, 2014 and registered days later.
That deed indicated that the property belonged to Choy Min Sun, who died in 2013 and left the property to relatives Glenda Jackman, Choy Chan Sin and David Steele.
The Grants filed a claim against Bovell seeking the return of the $800,000 purchase price as well as $182,209.68 they spent renovating the property before the dispute arose.
Bovell later countersued Jackman, Chan Sin, Steele and Alloy Sun, the executor of Min Sun’s estate. He claimed he held proper title through a deed of conveyance executed between him and Min Sun in 1979. According to Bovell, the deed remained in escrow until 2007 and was eventually registered in December 2014, after the deed of assent.
The case centres on Section 16(1) of the Registration of Deeds Act (Trinidad and Tobago), which gives priority to competing deeds based on the time of registration.
In January 2019, High Court judge Kevin Ramcharan upheld the Grants’ claim and dismissed Bovell’s counterclaim against the group.
However, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago later overturned that decision, prompting the final appeal before the Privy Council.
Attorney Christophe Rodriguez, representing the heirs, argued that the legislation should be applied strictly.
“Having registered a deed of assent first they should prevail over any subsequently registered deed,” Rodriguez said.
He argued that the system created by the law requires people with interests in land to register their deeds promptly.
Attorney Kiel Taklalsingh, who represented the Grants and Bovell, argued that priority should not be based solely on the timing of registration.
“It could not be the intention of Parliament for Section 16(1) to permit an individual or estate to pass title to a property, which they did not have a right to, based on registration,” Taklalsingh said.
He suggested the legislation should only apply where there are competing lawful interests in the same property.
“I submit that priority should not be based on swiftness of registration but the rightness of the deed to register,” he said.
During the hearing, Law Lord George Leggatt questioned the implications of that argument.
“Based on your interpretation the swiftness of registration would have no effect at all. You are saying it gives you no more protection than you had anyway,” Lord Leggatt said.
Taklalsingh argued that the Court of Appeal ruled in his client’s favour after determining that Bovell held the better title through the 1979 agreement.
“Our primary proposition is by virtue of the 1979 deed, Min Sun had divested himself of the title to the legal and equitable interest in the property,” he said.
Contacted yesterday, Taklalsingh said the case could have significant implications for property transactions across the country.
“There are instances where individuals purchase property and execute their deeds, but those documents may not be registered right away,” Taklalsingh said.
“The court must decide whether those persons could potentially lose their property rights if another deed relating to the same property is registered before theirs,” he added.
The heirs were also represented by Kimaada Ottley of Allum Chambers.
English (US) ·