(Jamaica) Parties had entered into a joint venture, before one fell into severe financial difficulties. A scheme of arrangement was proposed in which plots which were part of the development would be apportioned, but steps were not taken to complete this. The land was transferred to VandS. FIS obtained an order for possession. VandS appealed, saying it was a tenant of the properties.
Held: The claimants pleaded that no no estoppel per rem judicata arose. No such estoppel could arise in respect of an order which was not final, such as an interim order or a judgment obtained in default of appearance. The appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Citations:
[2005] UKPC 24
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 11-May-1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
Distinguished – Patrick v Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd PC 1979
A resident magistrate (whose summary order for possession of land, made on proceedings commenced by an information, lay at the foundation of arguments about estoppel) had no jurisdiction to decide a question of title to land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228319
