Dart wants court to block use of beach facilities

| 30/01/2019 | 185 Comments
Cayman News Service

Beach Suites, the Dart Group property on Seven Mile Beach where rights are disputed

(CNS): Cayman’s largest developer and landowner has filed a legal action to prevent the residents of a condominium complex from getting access to the beach facilities on one of its acquisitions. The Dart Group and its ever-growing property portfolio wants a legal declaration that the homeowners in the luxury Britannia Estates development do not have any rights to use the facilities at the former Beach Suites property that the Dart Group owns and where it has recently completed a redevelopment. The dispute goes back several years, since Dart closed the golf course also associated with the property and began a fight over the restrictive agreements guaranteeing homeowners certain access to facilities.

The original owners at the Britannia development were given rights to use the golf course, tennis courts, hotel facilities and beach access on what was the associated hotel development on Seven Mile Beach. This was managed by Hyatt Hotels for many years and then became the Beach Suites after the rest of the properties were severely damaged in Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

But in court documents filed Friday, Dart argued that the agreements were not rights but merely a contractual arrangement that should not legally obligate the new owners of the linked properties in any way. Dart’s legal team is claiming that the Registrar of Lands improperly registered the access rights and they should no longer apply.

In a press statement yesterday, Dart set out its position and made it clear it expected the court’s decision would be in its favour.

“There has been a disagreement between Dart and the Britannia residents as to the correct legal status of the restrictive agreements,” the company stated. “Over the course of the last two years, there have been meetings and communication between Dart and Britannia representatives to discuss options for resolution of the issue, but the parties failed to reach an agreement.”

Dart said it had informed all the residents that it was taking legal action, as it believes it is entitled in law to have the restrictive agreements removed from the property registers.

“The Cayman Islands has a reliable and respected land titles system which has been at the core of the jurisdiction’s appeal to both local and international property investors,” the Dart Group stated, making it clear what it expected the result to be.

“Cayman courts are internationally recognized for delivering fair and thorough decisions in complex disputes. Dart has every confidence that the Grand Court will appropriately consider and decide the important legal issues involving the restrictive agreements and that such decision will give clarity to what Dart regards as an open legal issue in this jurisdiction.”

Back in 2016, when Dart closed the golf course, Paul Simon, an attorney who was representing the residents and was also an owner at Britannia, said that for more than 30 years residents who invested in homes there had done so in good faith with the knowledge that they had the rights to use the facilities at the time, which included the Britannia Golf Club and Grand Cayman Beach Suites.

But Dart, as the current owner of the properties, now argues in the legal case that many of the facilities don’t even exist, having been destroyed in the hurricane, and that the agreements on the relevant property registers are not legally binding. Dart claims they should be removed from the register, putting an end to access to the beach facilities as well, which is the only remaining privilege that was part of the original rights.

CNS has contacted Simon, as it is no longer clear if he is still speaking for the owners, who have all been invited by Dart to engage in the legal action, and we are awaiting a response.

Access to the beach area in front of the property remains subject to all the legal beach access rights, which are supposed to be enjoyed by the wider community. However, the disputed rights of the Britannia residents extend to all of the facilities associated with the beachfront area of the former hotel, including loungers and the pool.

Dart has recently invested $1 million on refurbishing the property in question, which is due to formally open in the coming weeks as an unbranded boutique hotel.

Tags: , ,

Category: Business, development, Local News, Tourism

Comments (185)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    It will be nice to have a judicial ruling on this. Property law decisions in Cayman are few, and with all the claims of easements that there are, there is very little clarity.

    29
    2
  2. MM says:

    The DART PR team are saying that the Courts of the Cayman Islands are fantastic at resolving these disputes fairly etc and that they expect the situation to be resolved in DART’s favor – they have also proclaimed that for this reason [excellent jurisprudence] the Cayman Islands are deemed attractive to a myriad of property investors.

    However, in the same breath they are also saying that as a property investor who purchases a luxury unit (or many luxury units) in any single development in the Cayman islands you also run the risk of losing the access rights, privileges, amenities and value of your property for causes outside of force majeure.

    In addition, these statements have also proclaimed that property investors who are multi-millionaires (but not billionaires) run the risk of losing enormous value on their property to situations like this [ownership transfer] and can expect the Courts to allow such losses despite access rights documents being lodged at the Registrar of Lands of the Cayman Islands.

    Every property owner in the Cayman Islands should be VERY VERY concerned right now if covenants, access rights and agreements lodged against a parcel are deemed by our Courts to be “invalid” – start checking your strata documents and reading over your covenants and access rights people – unit owners, demand your strata committee update and register covenants that meet with the times and take new laws in to consideration – if you are in an older property on SMB especially – this is some scary sh!t. .

    81
    4
  3. Anonymous says:

    Britannia? That place has gone to the dogs.

    21
    32
  4. Anonymous says:

    Dart should agree to reopen the golf course, and then charge the owners for any shortfall in the upkeep and running costs! Then see how long they want their golf rights for. Not long I suspect.

    13
    35
    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps when Dart bought the golf course they should have calculated the costs and upkeep before they bought.

      36
      6
      • Anonymous says:

        If you think Dart bought the land with any intention of keeping it as a golf course as opposed to covering it in buildings you need your head examined.

        34
        2
  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m willing to bet that some serious Dart pressure is being placed on his best friend Alden to help him with this one.

    41
    7
  6. Anonymous says:

    I wish he’d do the same with Starfish Point. It’s a disgrace the way this special place has been exploited by the greedy and ignorant.

    33
    3
  7. Anonymous says:

    Weird thing happened in the Cayman Islands before.

    such as;

    – retroactive application of Pension Law
    – The Dormant Accounts Law (basically stealing only after SEVEN years of account inactivity).
    – conviction of Michelle Bouchard
    – many who committed SERIOUS crime against people or property got off with no criminal record or a slap on a hand.

    This will be a very interesting case to follow.

    23
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      How in the hell does Michelle Bouchard fit in with the rest of those?

      15
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        That man thought he could buy him a piece of young nookie. He got what he paid for and you people went after her with pitchforks.
        I am not saying she was innocent nor that she should not have been ‘punished’ but you also allow your own people to steal from you (and everyone else) and sit back after a mere slap on the hand. You allow men to rape your children (and animals) and sit back with a mere slap on the hand…
        And you ALL know it!

        7
        7
  8. Anonymous says:

    In advance of this KAABOO event, cheap AF, Dart wanted to spruce up and repaint the public beach cabanas – so they “donated” $100 in paint to Lions and requested their volunteers repaint them, then took a bow for their “philanthropy” and “community involvement”! Shameless.

    54
    7
  9. Anonymous says:

    Poor fools that only read CNS think this is about beach access.

    17
    2
  10. Anonymous says:

    New Headline:

    Dart wants the legal means in which we use to uphold _the law_ of which he is _legally_ entitled to, as a legal owner of the property purchased under the _law_ of the Cayman Islands

    16
    32
  11. Anonymous says:

    sometimes you do wonder about these Dart lot and the bubble they’re in….just a simple browse through the news in recent months would show that the timing to even enable the suggestion of restricting access to anything beach-like wouldn’t be the wisest move on their part….i wonder will this finally be the straw that breaks the camel…as another post says, the 800lb gorilla is out of control…time to tranquilize him

    55
    6
  12. Anonymous says:

    I don’t have any dog in the fight but why would Dart ask for a court revision if he wasn’t sure of what the contract said.
    Say what you want to say but uncle DART is in his right why did the people from Britannia sign the dam thing in the first place. .

    7
    43
    • MM says:

      The owners purchased these properties 30 yrs ago – what exactly should they not have signed?

      38
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Dear God! The folks from Britannia signed documents when they acquired their properties that gave them rights to the golf course, beach access, gym etc. Dart then acquired the Beach Suites, golf course, Hyatt properties, but wants to renege on the rights previously granted so he can use the golf club land for development, avoid having to allow Britannia residents access to his beach club, or provide a gym. Because they wouldn’t agree to it he’s taking them to court. As to why he’s doing it, well he thinks he can either outspend them in Court and get his way by default, or threaten them with costs should they resist and for whatever reason lose.

      Imagine you bought a condo where you were guaranteed access to a gym, a swimming pool and the beach – and a developer came along and acquired the land and said he didn’t give a stuff about your rights; the gym was being demolished, the swimming pool filled in to allow him to build more condos, and all the beach access was being sold to a beach club who would now charge you for access. and if you didn’t like it, he was going to sue you and if you dared oppose him you better win or he is going to charge you personally a million bucks in legal costs.

      You cannot say because someone starts a legal action they must be the right – the real world is a little more complicated than that. You my friend are throwing the rock in the wrong direction.

      78
      3
  13. Anonymous says:

    Look at all these snivelling peasants leaving rebellious comments against their overlord. Do they not realise what happens when you invite the devil for dinner? Wait until we roll out the Dart electronic population tagging system..

    60
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      Already here. Tracking all visitors to Camana Bay via your phone if you connect to the Wifi. Shows where you visit and time spent at any location.

      48
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        When you connect to wifi the only identifying information sent is your MAC address, which is usually formatted like: “00-14-22-01-23-45”. Your phone doesn’t transmit your name.

        9
        4
    • Anonymous says:

      Dart already monitors electronically. Use your Polyn card at Big Daddy’s or Blackbeard’s liquor stores (both owned by Dart)? They have a detailed record of your alcohol purchases. Betcha they check it if you apply for work with Dart….

      13
      6
  14. Anonymous says:

    XXXXX are the architects behind all of this to eliminate the registered rights away from Caymanians and owners who have had these registered rights for over 30 years registered on Caymans land registry under the country’s British based, land and title laws.
    Dart is also taking the Cayman Government and the Lands and Survey dept and registry to court in this case and this will set an extremely dangerous precedence in the country that NO-ONE will be protected or secured by our lands and title laws which is the very reason foreigners feel comfortable investing in real estate in the Cayman islands rather than other islands all because of our lands and title laws. This is a huge assault on the rights and freedoms of Caymanians and the country and If Govt does not shut Ken Dart down on this matter it will be the beginning of the end as Kenneth Dart takes over and changes the laws of the country and takes our rights away. It is time Joey Hew, and the Premier Alden McLaughlin step up and represent all Caymanians rather than drink the dart KoolAid for one vote from Dart. If Joey Hew who is seriously conflicted as a tenant at Camana Bay and who also has the Dart contract for all janitorial services at Camana Bay, does not support his constituents in his constituency on this GT North matter, then it will be the very last time he will hold any office in this country. Joey it is time to show the country where your support lies, with the people or with the ruthless vulture capitalist taking over our country. This matter determines the future of our country and affect generations to come.

    80
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      Joey Hew has no involvement in Hews Janitorial and has had none since he ran for election. You do not know the man at all if you think he would ever compromise his principles – and his great family name – for anyone.

      Alden renegotiated the Dart deal that Big Mac made, so that the country got a better deal.

      You need to check your glass for Kool-Aid, seriously!

      10
      27
      • Anonymous says:

        “Joey Hew” and “principles”. Definition of “oxymoron”!

        16
      • Anonymous says:

        Wow this page is turning into the comedy club!
        You all just need to accept what the master wants and shut the hell up.

        2
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Joey Hew and his family business interests and members are the definition of politically exposed persons. Be careful not glorify any politician if you do not understand the source of funds for the business ventures. Ethics are not something you can buy in shop it is proved by your actions.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not going to happen as you summed it all up. The master has spoken and we will do as told.

      6
      1
  15. Anonymous says:

    Would anyone else like to have several developers all vying for land, competing to create the best, instead of one developer consistently telling us that their master plan is our master plan? Theirs is designed to build and enhance the value of a real estate portfolio. Ours should be about so much more, and it should prevail over theirs.

    28
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      No one has stopped other developers from acquiring and developing property. Britannia sat empty for a decade, where were the other developers?

      14
      1
      • Ex lawyer says:

        No other developer wanted to pay the high asking price for the property with those covenants as they knew they couldn’t be removed. Seems Dart got the wrong lawyers to advise them. I wonder if Dart loses if they will go after the lawyers that gave them this duff advice. May be no win no fee!

        11
      • Anonymous says:

        They did want to touch it! Who would wat to deal with all those owners?

        2
        3
  16. No state citizen says:

    This is just the beginning.
    People are always praising the Dart Organization and “how much it has done for Cayman” but at what cost my friends and fellow countrymen, at what cost?

    Soon you will have to pay a toll to pass through Dart properties.

    That organisation is not going to stop until they own almost everything in these islands.
    The natives will be herded into the bush like cattle because they won’t be able to afford anywhere else.

    The rich Caymanians who have sold out these islands and their souls think they have made it and are friends with Ken Dart will soon realise they are nothing more than pawns who can be easily discarded.

    64
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      I have been saying this to anyone that will listen for many years. I even stood with those on WB road when he first tried to shut it down. But I am only a Paper Caymanian.

      Have you heard…? His wife has already called the Cayman Islands her husbands islands. This was reported in the news. If I could find where I read this I would gladly post it…
      Anyone??
      He tried it on in the Bahamas but they luckily figured him out and turfed him out.
      Belize? Didn’t go so well there either but I think they still owe him money..

      I blame the Caymanian government and all you Caymanians that sold your businesses to him out of greed. The stories have been all over the marl road for years.
      Did you hear the one about Piccadilly Centre? The original owner would not sell to him but he figured a way to get it anyway.
      Royal Palms? The original owner stood firm until his family did the deal anyway.
      I’m not sure if this will be posted because nobody is willing to speak out about these things and I don’t understand how he is being so protected.
      Gorilla get karma I hope…

      42
      2
  17. Anonymous says:

    From a purely LEGAL perspective, Dart is probably on very solid ground on this, as these types of covenants generally do not “run with the land”; that is, the covenants dont attach to the land (regardless of ownership). Covenants that “run with the land” are things like “houses need to be a certain style”, or “you cant keep certain types of animals” on the land (these covenants ensure orderly neighborhood development etc).

    Under English law, you cant generally attach a “right of use” to another’s owners land via a covenant registration. This is actually nearly unheard of in land registration (the imposition of this type of affirmative burden). I think this is what Dart is challenging; this wasnt initially done in a legal matter and shouldnt be attached to a piece of land in perpetuity. It is just not the proper legal mechanism. This should instead be a contractual arrangement (which doesnt seem to have done in this case. The more recent property transactions in Cayman have been done in a proper manner — I have personally bought into one of these on another property).

    Now, removing the covenants doesnt mean Dart cant then simply agree to let the 30 owners use the beach facilities at the Beach Suites (which was built in 1998, well after most of the Britannia condos were), and contractually agree to do this for a period of time at no charge. There is no real cost to Dart for this as those using the beach facilities might likely be buying and drinks and food at the new Tillies restaurant (which arent cheap). And at a given time, perhaps only zero to 4-5 owners might concurrently use the beach facilities on a given weekend).

    I suspect that this will be the resolution: Dart will win the legal case (99% certain) and have these covenants detached from the LAND. Then Dart will separately contractually agree to allow use of the beach facilities to Britannia for no charge or $1 per year (only 51% certain on this one).

    10
    32
    • Anonymous says:

      Under English Law, rights of way, rights of access and rights of usage are quite common and run with the land. They are not dependent on the existence of the business that originally sold those rights. If properly registered at the time of purchase, then Dart will have difficulty overturning those rights without the agreement of the rights holders and without paying compensation for the loss of those rights.

      My property in the UK controls the development rights over the property next door and also has a right of way over part of the frontage. This latter right was part of my terms of purchase of the property from the then owner of both the house next door and my plot of land. A new owner of the house next door sought to challenge my right of way over that part of the property (which would have forced me to build a new access to my house) – after 13 years and after beggaring himself, he lost.

      Interestingly, while researching for that case, I discovered that there are covenants on my property giving me the right to build commercial hen-houses and keep chickens on my property, as it forms part of an old farm and, by accident, retains that right. That right dates from the 1860s, when the land was first sub-divided to create building plots. As they haven’t been exercised in the last 150 years, and the land usage has changed from farming to residential, these rights probably could be challenged as “lapsed” in a Court.

      23
    • Anonymous says:

      It’s part of the management and operations contract sold to hotel “Residence” owners worldwide, and those obligations transfer with “hotel” and land sales. You don’t get to acquire a hotel or land and switch off the parts of your obligations you don’t like (or maybe you can in the Cayman Islands). The Britannia Residence owners ought to have collectively sued years ago after Ivan for non-performance, and probably didn’t simply because of impaired communication (and frugality) amidst the number of building phases, and subsequent Strata companies in Britannia/King’s Court Residences.

      15
    • Anonymous says:

      in English law, the courts just sided months ago with the homeowners that that these covenants actually run with the land…

      24
    • Anonymous says:

      Ummmm, if you want to have a licensed premises it has to be open to the general public (as a customer base) at no charge.

      You should also read the prescription law and study history. Hemingways was there for many years before the beach suites.

      6
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        I went to Beach suites yesterday and pulled up in my car and said we wanted to have an afternoon drink at the bar – we were turned away. My girlfriend and I were told the property was for guests only now. So we went to the Westin and enjoyed a lovely drink on the beach. So when Beach suites are desperate for residents in the low season, I for one will not be back.

        39
        1
    • Anonymous says:

      No he isn’t. Supreme Court saw to that.

    • Anonymous says:

      And why having won the legal case would he allow people to use the facilities for a peppercorn rent? You think he’s Santa Claus? Cause Santa would seek a court order specifically removing any obligation he may have to deliver Christmas presents, then do it anyway, right? Call me a cynic but I suspect this is more to do with profit maximisation for MR D than tiding up a legal point (at significant cost to him) for the sake of tidiness and then allowing people the benefit of the rights he has just legally expunged.

      3
      6
    • Anonymous says:

      Scary to think you might be a lawyer.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Upcoming Breaking News: Dart blocks out the sun over Cayman to send it only over Camana Bay.

    41
    3
  19. FORE! says:

    If the Britannia owners thought they had a case, they would have filed themselves. They blinked and Dart called their bluff. Game over.

    10
    19
  20. Anonymous says:

    Ah, the one that got good old Darty finally in trouble…to save you the trouble i’ve posted one link below, but go and google ‘regency villas v diamond resorts’ and see for yourself that what’s really happening here is Darty Party has gone and bought himself a huge chunk of land (Britannia golf course) at a vulture’s rate (cause thats the only thing he’s good at) in the opinion that nobody in Cayman is clever enough to stop him before the truth comes out…alas…it did…and it turns out that Britannia owners can stop him developing the golf course into residences…is that a big deal? why yes…because he vultured as usual his way to buy it cheap with his expert opinions that Cayman was stupid enough to miss the fact it couldnt be either builton on easily rezoned!! However…the UK Supreme Court just slammed him…so he’s got a load of worthless acres that he can’t build on…so what does he do? He reverts to bully boy type and tries to bring Britannia to the table….but Britannia couldnt care less what he does, because he’s not going to win…he wants to restrict rights to the beach for 190 homes that have had them for decades, so that his family can run another silly loss making venture into the ground (marl road has it his own family are behind the lipstick on a pig beach suites remodel doomed to failure inside a year)…..not this time Darty Party….not this time..and he keeps the old hyatt hotel decrepit buildings standing as a big f*ck you to all britannia and cayman residents….such a pity…..its like, when you buy land next to a dump and then pretend it wasn’t there, and want it moved to Bodden Town…..Darty PArty time over…..190 residents, none of them poor….go away you wannabe Howard Hughes

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0083-judgment.pdf

    38
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Those mental health facilities can’t come soon enough.

      14
      9
    • Anonymous says:

      @9:27 pm Thank you for the link!

      11
    • Anonymous says:

      @9:27 pm Excellent comment. But is the wonderland, aka “The Cayman Islands ” anything can happen.
      Canadian Michelle Bouchard, 55 wouldn’t have been charged, let alone convicted anywhere else in the world, for each account holder has an equal legal right to the entire balance of the account.

      5
      6
    • Anonymous says:

      Basically; https://www.regencyvillasonline.com/members-area
      Good for them. But how did you know this was one of Darty Party’s deals? He hides behind so many companies and corporations… Cayman will NEVER know how much of their island is already sold/gone.
      What’s going on with Island Pines??? Have they finally all sold out yet??
      It’s coming people. Just sit back and watch it happen now.
      No turning back.

      9
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks mate. Looks like we don’t have many real land lawyers on here who know English land law, and understand why English courts will perpetually uphold this ancient English principle on restrictive covenants. Breath of fresh air!

  21. Anonymous says:

    The honeymoon is over!

    45
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      The beginning of the end for Cayman as the elephant in the room rules the country and determines the laws to further ruthlessly enrich himself. He is already running the country, so Alden and Joey need to clear out their offices for the new sheriff in town to move in.

      24
      4
  22. Anonymous says:

    Bring the popcorn….let us see how this one plays out!

    28
    1
  23. Anonymous says:

    All the anti dart talk, but he is a Caymanian

    12
    46
    • Anonymous says:

      At the end of the day he bought the property knowing that those rights had been given to the residents of Britannia. Sorry he bought it fully knowing it and now he wants to stomp his entitled foot and get his way in court? Caymanian or not, it’s still ridiculous.

      35
      3
    • Anonymous says:

      Dart is a McKeeva Caymanian. Granted when the law was bent to give status to people who weren’t eligible. A few people who were eligible were thrown in to muddy the waters.

      Remember who gave away your birthright fellow Caymaniansm

      17
      • Anonymous says:

        The police who did not investigate? The AG who did not prosecute? The Governor who refused to block? The PPM who refused to undo?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Seems to me that the only public spaces we have of any decent size has been provided by Dart.

    24
    45
    • Anonymous says:

      Rumor has it there’s a reservation in the works to house the last of the Caymanians and keep them away from the civilized population.

      38
      8
    • Anonymous says:

      Really? The golf course is a decent size. Let him build the best park on the island – carry your Foster’s over to have a picnic. He won’t make hundreds of millions but he’ll have made Cayman a better place. I’m sure that will happen, yes, I’m sure of it.

      23
    • Anonymous says:

      5.38 I think you mean Bought by Dart.

      8
      1
  25. Anonymous says:

    If the courts don’t reject this insanity this will be the end of the end. This is the final chance for Cayman to put their foot down. Think of a little kid throwing a temper tantrum, if you continually give it all you are doing is feeding the problem and creating a monster. If you say no and mean it may this will stop.

    94
    10
  26. Precedent Setting Decision. And not in a good way! says:

    If the Grand Court rules in Dart’s favor, they would be setting a very dangerous legal precedent. The Grand Court would be providing any landowner precedent to have any long-standing access rights and restrictions allocated to their property to be removed. That would include public beach access ways and rights of way that have been legally documented on the Land Registry for decades. Imagine the chaos that will ensue Grand Court!

    88
    7
    • Ej says:

      May be the covenants were badly drafted. Were they supposed to be for ever? What contribution were the owners supposed to give for those rights? You can’t give a right for something that is no longer there and that someone else has to pay for? Perhaps the owners should go after the original developers? If they still exist!

  27. Anonymous says:

    If this succeeds it’ll be very interesting to see what impact it has on the real estate market here in general because it seems to me (and I’m happy to be corrected on this) that the argument is a company can acquire property then simply tear up any agreements the residents of that property had because it doesn’t suit them.

    81
    6
  28. Anonymous says:

    the essence of what is being dealt with here is, – ‘Elliott Capital’ (Paul Singer & Ken Dart) had an Argentine Naval vessel detained and moved through the courts to have ‘Tango One’ (Argentine Presidential plane grounded) when it was scheduled to land in the US as leverage to get the $23 million they purchased against the Argentine distressed debt. It’s not all children’s playgrounds and elaborate town centres Cayman, I’m willing to hedge it is very much more than that.

    48
    4
  29. Anonymous says:

    Beware Caymanians………….what Dart Wants Dart gets!! Alden should be ashamed of himself to not take a stand against this.
    What a shame that he was given the reins to this country.

    63
    12
  30. Anonymous says:

    yawn..more anti-dart nonsense….let the courts decide.

    26
    93
    • Anonymous says:

      Yawn…take your medication and go back to bed. If the Court were to rule in Darts favor then this will open a massive can of worms with landowners and shutting down public beach access and right of ways.

      24
      4
  31. Anonymous says:

    This is only the beginning. I’m sure we will begin to see a lot more of Dart restricting access to his facilities island wide. Watch this space.

    126
    9
  32. Anonymous says:

    This will be a very interesting case for a number of the mixed-use hotel-residences along SMB to watch, such as at the Seafire. Because if you can lose your ‘contracted’ ‘access to amenities on the property’ just because part of the property changes hands/management … well, this could end up affecting a lot of people in the long run. (And how future purchase contracts are worded and priced.) Especially if you’ve bought into a residence that is part of a conglomeration of businesses that you often just think of under a single family name.

    73
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      And just think what happens to condo owners at the Ritz and Seafire if the hotels go under ( as the Ritz nearly did a few years ago) They would find themselves having to maintain the whole property to protect their interest. That is why I would never buy into one of these mixed use developments.

      31
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        None of Mr. Dart’s properties will have a financial problems so stop spreading fake news. Thank you Mr. Dart!

        3
        30
    • Anonymous says:

      Private Residences enjoying “hotel lifestyle perks” are how modern hotels get financed, as with Torchinsky’s former Hyatt, the Ritz Carlton, Kimpton, new Hyatt, old TI/Magarittaville…the fabled Ironwood Golf Resort, the Beach Bay Mandarin Oriental, and any future Four Seasons…they are all pitching turn key advantages of residence living on a hotel property…until that hotel changes hands, apparently! DRCL is gunning for a very dangerous precedent which will impair their own development efforts!

      53
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      No it won’t. There is no comparison.

      5
      23
      • Anonymous says:

        How is there no comparison between what Hyatt sold, and the current situation, wan what a number of developments on SMB (in Cayman) are currently selling? Details please.

        21
        3
  33. Anonymous says:

    Just wait, if they win this they will file to keep all Caymanians off their properties.

    83
    17
  34. Anonymous says:

    I thought that when you purchased a company you also purchased any contractual obligations that the company had entered into, and surely the price paid would have reflected this obligation. I would be happy to purchase Cayman Airways if I didn’t have to pay their debts.

    It’s funny how Dart purchased Argentina’s debt on pennies for the dollar and took them to court to get the full dollar back, but when he has an obligation he wants the courts to wipe it out.

    If there is any justice in Cayman he should not only have to honour the obligation of beach access, but the courts should also force him to refurbish the tennis courts and re-open the golf course.

    151
    9
    • Anonymous says:

      He should put the tennis courts right back where they were.

      61
      3
    • Anonymous says:

      It is interesting to witness the turn-around from the benevolent philanthropist here in Cayman , to land-grab and cut off access at the knee’s. A prescriptive right to access comes to mind for the Britannia residents , from a legal stand-point. Of course , there was a choice to have left the golf course as it was, make improvements and turn that into a public course , that you don’t have to pay $160.00 for a round to access. Residents of Britannia could have been extended a pass of some type , to allow them and visiting family or guests to go to the beach. How many times annually would they actually use the pass ? The tennis courts have gone, but access again could have been extended once re-instated , for a pro-rated discount annually. Young golfers and tennis players would have benefited , many families cannot afford to pay high member rates at other sporting venues. He owns North Sound golf course.True colours sometimes show in bright sunshine.

      39
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        He owns the Blue Tip Course at the Ritz to.

        12
        • Anonymous says:

          Isn’t that zoned public open space?

          7
          1
          • Anonymous says:

            Hush. The public might try to claim access to it.

          • Anonymous says:

            Yes, Blue Tip is zoned public open space, but the plan for Dart’s Dragon Bay is to sell the back nine holes of North Sound Golf Course for luxury houses, then create one golf course out of the front nine holes of North Sound Course combined with the nine holes of Blue Tip owned by Dart too. Will be a wonderful 18 hole course with all the upgrades. Just hope locals can afford to play there.

            4
            1
        • Anonymous says:

          Too*

          5
          1
    • Anonymous says:

      Cayman Airways’ debt is legally binding.

      The article clearly states there were agreements made that were not permanently set in stone by law to last any x amount of time.

      7
      3
    • Anonymous says:

      Why would Dart buy a company when he could just buy the property? Imagine you would probably just want to buy the airplane instead of the airplane and the debt.

      12
    • Anonymous says:

      If you bought the company. If you bought its assets then the contractual obligations do not apply unless properly secured against the asset. Ask the Ritz property owners about their entitlement to use the golf course.

      1
      1
  35. Anonymous says:

    This was always a huge selling point with real estate agents…They would have BS’d this in their sales pitch (because that’s what they do. Was done to me as well). But the residents still should have rights. This is crap but completely fully expected from the Dart people. I hope the residents win.

    121
    6
  36. Real Caymanian...... says:

    What does this mean for their strata fees? Shouldn’t they be getting a discount after not being allowed to do a number of things as they did before?

    101
    8
  37. Anonymous says:

    Good. Get this thing finally resolved so that Dart can finally tear down the old Hyatt and do something nice with that land (which will actually increase the value of Britannia condos, many of which are 2-3 decades old and need improvement anyway).

    32
    71
  38. Anonymous says:

    They don’t call him a Vulture Capitalist for nothing!!! I don’t know of anything good about him.

    115
    19
    • Anonymous says:

      His Styrofoam food containers are pretty good… Oh wait… they’re washing up in tiny pieces all over the beaches!

      112
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        Is he personally involved in the styrofoam containers business?

        33
        8
        • Anonymous says:

          OMG…where do you think the family fortune came from?

          59
        • Anonymous says:

          Doesn’t matter, it was funny.

          7
          1
        • Anonymous says:

          LOL

        • Anonymous says:

          He invented Styrofoam. It’s all him. He should be paying massive damages for poisoning the planet with it!

          54
          10
          • Anonymous says:

            Umm – no. He didn’t invent styrofoam, one of his relatives did back in 1960. 20 seconds on Google would have told you that if you bothered to check. Nor is he involved in the container business anymore, having left it for the giddier shores of secondary debt trading and real estate development some time ago.

            20
            5
            • Anonymous says:

              Did you understand the word ‘legacy’?

              12
            • Anonymous says:

              From New York radio site about the ongoing case of NYC trying g to impose styrofoam ban – difficult to be conclusive but it seems the ban was only finally reinstated late last year… they were very much in the business until then…

              ‘Cabrera and other New York City politicians have received campaign contributions from Dart in the past. According to New York City Campaign Finance Board data, more than a dozen other New York City politicians received $39,095 in campaign contributions from Ariane Dart, the wife of Dart’s CEO, in 2013, the same year the polystyrene ban was first debated in Council.

              The company vowed to again fight the ban in the courts.

              12
              • Anonymous says:

                You do know that Ariane is not Ken Darts wife, right?

                6
                4
                • Anonymous says:

                  Yes thank you for that. Ken his brother and his brothers wife were a very integral part (according to online records) of Dart Containers until Ken stepped down from President in 2015 – two years after the NYC ban was first ‘debated in council’

                • Anonymous says:

                  Did you even read it?
                  “Ariane Dart, the wife of Dart’s CEO”

                  3
                  2
                  • Anonymous says:

                    Who is not Ken Dart….You do understand that there are multiple Dart organisations, and that Ken Dart is not the CEO of every Dart organisation on the planet.

          • Anonymous says:

            He didn’t invent Styrofoam he invented the plastic solo cup and produces polystyrene and plastic products at his factory in the states, where he made his fortune.

            9
            8
        • Anonymous says:

          Duh what do you think?

          7
          3
      • Anonymous says:

        12 03. No thanks to your sarcasm that is very convoluted. All beaches have things washing up at all times. If we get a take out container it is up to us to dispose of it properly. It is not The Dart Co’s fault if you dump your garbage on the beach. Dart is providing jobs so stop with the jealousy and lies.
        I am a Dart fan and love his improvements to Cayman. Maybe you are driving around and love looking at his projects. Hypocrite.

        23
        48
        • Anonymous says:

          I prefer the Cayman of the 80’s and early 90’s when I was a kid. Dart can kindly leave Cayman and take all of his shiny objects with him.

          48
          7
        • Anonymous says:

          Despite this, and knowing the damage Styrofoam and plastics poise, he could be a socially responsible corporate citizen and invent or make biodegradable and environmentally friendly products as many other manufacturers now do.

          25
          3
      • Anonymous says:

        blame the consumer not the manufacturer…

        23
        15
      • Anonymous says:

        @12:03. I don’t see empty bottles of The Macallan Rare Cask Single Malt or Beluga Gold Line vodka washing up anywhere.

        4
        3
  39. Anonymous says:

    The residents should have long ago asked for and accepted a reasonable settlement. The main facilities used have been destroyed or closed. The use of beach chairs at a hotel is the least valuable of all of the past. Why would you want to sit beside a hundred packed tourists anyway?

    16
    36
    • Anonymous says:

      The value is in the right to access, if and when they reappear somewhere on that property. And since its zoned hotel on SMB, facilities will probably reappear.

      18
      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Except they have no right of access. They had a contract with the prior owners. Big difference.

        5
        12
        • Anonymous says:

          Restrictive covenants recorded on land register pass with the land and are completely different to contract with prior owners. Even BIGGER difference. Try again.

    • Anonymous says:

      Reasonably settlement? For what? They have no rights against DART.

      8
      12
    • Anonymous says:

      11:41, Why do you assume that Dart would even have given a reasonable settlement? The current management of Dart is not into good public relations but being the out of control 800 pound gorilla. One cannot negotiate with a gorilla.

  40. Anonymous says:

    “CNS: If we posted any comments that might prejudice active legal proceedings (such as the part of your comment that I XX’d out), we could find ourselves in legal jeopardy.”

    CNS: Sorry, I should have said criminal legal proceedings. This is a civil case and the sub judice rules do not apply.

    14
    2
  41. Anonymous says:

    I wonder which one of them wakes up in the morning and dreams up this evil to put onto other people, wasn’t it the Britannia Estate investors that shouldered the burden to finance the original project, without them there would have never been anything for Dart to buy.

    48
    5
  42. Anonymous says:

    Should the court rule in favour of the Britannia stratas, it will also be deeming the government purchase of the land used to to build the public road through the property illegal. This land would then need to be returned to its rightful owner.

    23
    15
    • Anonymous says:

      No, that future road right of way was on the Hyatt plans from the get-go. Its why nothing structural had to be knocked down when the road went in. (They sacrificed the croquet court though, IIRC.)

      23
      1
  43. Anonymous says:

    Let them use the tennis courts. Would be entertaining to watch them dodging traffic.

    14
    9
  44. Anonymous says:

    I very much doubt these rights run with the land, so DART are probably on firm ground.

    19
    32
  45. Anonymous says:

    Dart showing his true colours. What a nasty organization.

    122
    22

You can comment anonymously. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.