Appeal court finds owners’ rights not protected

| 08/03/2023 | 167 Comments
Cayman News Service

(CNS): The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has overturned a Grand Court decision that rights acquired by almost 200 homeowners in the Britannia residential community to access what was once the beach and other amenities at the former Hyatt resort should have been honoured by the current landowner. The Dart Group acquired the derelict hotel destroyed in Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and the redeveloped Beach Suites, as well as the surrounding land in 2016. Since then, it has been in dispute with the Britannia owners about those access rights.

In a decision handed down by the appeal court yesterday, some ten months after the appeal was filed in May 2022, the panel of judges said they recognised the implications of this decision.

“The Court has well in mind that the outcome of this appeal will have a profoundly negative impact on some 193 proprietors who, when purchasing their properties, are likely to have paid a premium for the Rights that they would have assumed had been securely protected by restrictive agreements registered in the register,” the judges wrote.

But the court said it was “driven to conclude, the apparent restrictive agreements” that the owners had believed would protect their rights “lacked the essential ingredient plainly and obviously required” to actually restrict the building on or the use of the land by its owner.

“The die was therefore cast at the very moment that the requested entries were recorded in the register, and it is most unfortunate that the proprietors must bear the consequences of the mistaken selection of this defective mechanism for the protection of the Rights,” the appeal court ruled.

Responding to the ruling, Dart and its attorneys said it was an important decision “for certainty of title in respect of land in Cayman that is governed by the Registered Land Act”. The islands’ largest developer and their wealthiest investor had argued that once the group had bought the former resort, it should not be bound by deals struck 15 years previously that prevented it from developing the land, which is close to Camana Bay, the town built and owned by the Dart Group.

Dart, which is keen to retain the amenities at the new hotel on the former Beach Suite site exclusively for the use of its high-net-worth guests at Palm Heights, also closed the golf course at Britannia, shutting out the owners in the connected development from all the remaining amenities they believed they had paid for. As a result, the Britannia owners took on the powerful corporate entity and were successful in the Grand Court.

Dart has consistently contended that there was “considerable uncertainty” over the nature and validity of the rights. The group claimed to have engaged in discussions for years with Britannia owners seeking to reach an agreement but had been unable to do so and so reverted to the courts.

However, the appeal court found that although the owners’ rights did meet the definition of easements, which would have ensured their access to the property, they were not registered as such since the original parties specifically requested that the registrar record the encumbrances as a restrictive agreement, not an easement.

The court, therefore, agreed with Dart that the nature of the rights did not amount to restrictive agreements capable of being registered as encumbrances. In this significant conclusion, the appeal court has decided that this fundamental error on the Land Registrar must be rectified by cancelling and deleting the rights in their entirety.

“As things currently stand, the register contains entries registering agreements that do not qualify for
registration by reason of failing to satisfy the definition of restrictive agreements,” the appeal court said in the ruling. “Those entries are accordingly grossly inaccurate and give a very misleading impression. In our view the case for their deletion is overwhelming.”

In a statement on its website, the legal team at Appleby representing Dart said that the appeal court’s decision “addresses a number of fundamental aspects of Cayman property law”.

“By giving primacy to commercial certainty, CICA judgment marks the reversal of a decision that created potentially impracticable consequences for the future use of the Land,” Appleby said. “On the Grand Court’s reasoning, the golf course land at Britannia could only be used to play golf by the Owners, but there was no requirement for the Dart Companies to maintain it as such and it could not be modified to any alternative use.”

CNS reached out to representatives of Britannia and their legal team at Walkers, who told us that they are considering the decision. “The Britannia proprietors note the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which openly acknowledged its profoundly negative and most unfortunate consequences. They are collectively considering the options open to them, including a further appeal,” Walkers stated.

See the full judgment in the CNS Library.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (167)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gilliejessie says:

    The incompetency rests squarely on CIG and the Registrar of Lands back in the day for not being sophisticated enough to recognize the original and complex registration of the owners rights was not enforceable as it was written. Don’t blame Dart for being predatory. He was smart enough to hire Cayman’s best legal team in Appleby to overturn the decision which was based on a poorly written original agreement. Walkers is laughing all the way to the bank by keeping the owners’ belief alive that they would ever win this at appeals.

    3
    4
  2. Anonymous says:

    Britannia Bots should probably have pooled together and purchased the properties when they were on the market. Sucks to be them.

    4
    10
  3. Anonymous says:

    Great! Dart can continue rollerblading lessons in an abandoned, derelict building! What a win for the country!

  4. Cayman and the hypocrites that live here says:

    Dont blame Dart blame our lame politicians who owe Dart everything down to houses he built for their parents. Blame all those uppercrust Caymanians sitting on panels and boards who’s two faced views and hypocrisy condone his actions whilst them are their siblings pretend not to support his aggressive development of these islands.

    25
    2
  5. Anonymous says:

    DART Vader, Britannia vs The Empire??!

    17
    2
  6. Darts Loyal Agent says:

    Britannia is overrated and overvalued anyway and has had too very serious Power failures in the past two years because of lack of upkeep to the electrical infrastructure grid I am much afraid it will be the next Randyke Gardens of West Bay Road Congrats to Mack Daddy Dart all hail Dart the true Boss of these islands that time has now forgotten.

    16
    20
  7. Anonymous says:

    Real estate lawyers and agents who were involved in past Britannia purchases, along with CIG, should pay the costs of a Privy Councel appeal to protect their own liabilities and establish security of ownership in Cayman, and to mitigate brand damages surely to arise should Dart’s case remains upheld.

    23
    3
  8. Anonymous says:

    The Nicklaus course was finished in 1985, and there is nobody with any connection to the Cayman Islands since that wouldn’t understand the prescriptive right that adjacent golf cart equipped residents would have to the course. They should be suing the CIG and Cabinets past that allowed a circus to be made of commercial interest over property rights, for the sake of all real estate investors.

    26
    3
    • Potter says:

      Except there can’t be prescriptive rights if the right was within the agreements. Prescription require adverse usage. The issue is is the status of amenity rights and the appeal court’s decision seems to bring the law back to where it was understood to be.

      7
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        The agreements and expectations are real. That’s why the owners went to court. The proper or errant registration of those understood agreements was perhaps not as codified as they had thought. Nevertheless, the spirit of the agreement on property rights should prevail for the interest of private landowners, not bias for error-seeking commercial developers on technicalities. If every calculated registration error in Cayman Islands Land Registry is allowed to be monetized by exploitive developers, then there’s no hope or political support for the property market.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Why didn’t the Britannia owners make a deal with the previous owner of the Hyatt property in the 10 years between Ivan and Dart’s purchase? This is all on the owners, Dart just doing what he does best.

    10
    22
    • Miami Dave says:

      8:12, You have obviously never tried to work with Dart on property matters.

      Total frustration. Just ask anybody at Safehaven who have been trying to get their rightful freeholds from Dart for years.

      25
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        You obviously don’t know how to read. I am asking about the 10 year period the property sat empty BEFORE Dart was involved.

        4
        7
        • Hubert says:

          Simple Bobo 2:27, there never was a problem with the previous owners before Dart. The chaos and infringement of rights only started when Dart took over.

          11
          2
          • Anonymous says:

            The owners before Dart’s deal were in negoiations with the related insurance companies and were reluctant to make arrangements of any sort until the insurance claims were settled.
            If the Privy Councel appeal isn’t approved by those owners at Brirannia, the next move for them might be to sue the real estate agents and lawyers who misrepresented the value to current purchasers.

            8
            1
          • Me, Gary says:

            Except the rights weren’t infringed. That is what the Court of Appeal decided and what the law was understood to be before this all kicked off.

            1
            6
    • Anonyminnemouse says:

      Maybe because since the previous owner honored the agreements that were registered against the title! When Dart tried to negotiate we were only ever given proposals of the proposals. When something was put forward that might have actually been accepted by the ownership it was pulled from the negotiations! Also don’t forget that Dart sued the owners not vice versa.

      13
      4
      • Perspective is everything says:

        Dart sued the owners? Yes, to strike off the register rights that were incapable of registration and correct an error that the owners would not correct without the courts getting involved.

        3
        6
  10. Anonymous says:

    A great win for Mr Dart. Let’s not let these under performing lawyers that live in Britannia just mess with everything so delay Darts next magnificent project for the good of the island. These legal delays have led the the continued eyesore of the old Hyatt.

    20
    49
  11. Anonymous says:

    Just to inform people, please understand that DART, never placed anything in writing, never provided development plans or any details on what they proposed and were consistently very vague about what they planned or proposed. Britannia had more than 40 meetings with DART employees over the years and everything negotiated and approved was then pulled off the table with their last proposal being to build 5 storey high rise buildings with a 50ft set back from current Britannia buildings. This man is totally out of control and enough is never enough. I agree with the comment below “DART Kingdom come, thy will be done”. Absolute Greed has NO end!!!!!

    52
    17
  12. Anonymous says:

    Lawyers are the big winners here…..

    40
    1
  13. Anonymous says:

    Dart provides a pathway for his executives to become very rich but they have to be prepared to do some dirty work and trample on quite a few Cayman residents to make that money. Greed will make Dart employees do anything their master bids.

    80
    14
    • Anonymous says:

      As if we should feel sad for all the rich Britannia residents who were led astray by arrogant lawyers. They could have reached a deal with Dart years ago.

      28
      43
    • Anonymous says:

      Indeed. The top executive in the property team was living the penthouse of the Seafire looking down at the all the land they own and soon will own.

      26
      5
    • Anonymous says:

      The senior ones have mastered the art of the superior smirk, complete with repeated Facebook postings of their material and social successes.

      27
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Stop following Dart execs on Facebook then. You’re showing your age and it’s obviously not good for your mental health.

        13
        8
      • Anonymous says:

        Learning how to drive their new boat is a bit lacking in the success department though.

    • Anonymous says:

      So what, if the job pays good might as well take it. Are you jealous?

      8
      9
  14. Anonymous says:

    Cant say I’m surprised by this, Daddy Dart always gets his way here. Give it another decade and he will have fences and security on what little beach is left to keep the “undesirables” away and out of sight.

    Give it another 20 years and he will have his own gated district stretching’s from end to end of the 7 mile corridor with his own private police force. He will be our own little mini Batista.

    54
    15
    • Anonymous says:

      Drama queen.

      20
      36
      • Anonymous says:

        8:06, No drama Queen here, just an example of raw power in the Cayman Islands.

        You don’t get it but bet you work for Dart so you are part of the problem.

        35
        9
        • Anonymous says:

          @09/03/2023 at 10:17 am

          Over the years there have been many wild predictions on this site- not sure if one has come to be true.
          If I read your response correct- you are someone who believes in the either “you are with us” or “against us” camp- am I correct?

          How’s that working for you? And you’ll probably be the same person who complains that Dart doesn’t hire enough Caymanians in the next article. Sigh

          7
          9
          • Anonymous says:

            12:57, You obviously have never dealt with Dart like I have for the past 15 years. It is either “my way or the Highway”, always with Dart.

            I can point to 6 different cases where they basically carry out a war of attrition through their lawyers. They know Bobo does not have deep enough pockets to fight them.

            I am the same person that has said that Dart should have cleaned up the old Hyatt eyesore years ago. Guess you don’t mind that eyesore. Sigh.

            29
            8
        • Anonymous says:

          Money is power, like it or not that’s the way it is. unless unna want communism in our land of soft fresh breezes, I’d suggest saving some money and watch compound interest work some wonders. everyone wants to be rich quick but nah

          4
          9
  15. Anonymous says:

    Have dart sold the freeholds of the save haven subleases as required by the purchase of the dragon bay freehold from govt yet? Eg waterways condos or is this another lands and survey registration mess?

    26
    2
    • Johnny Canuck says:

      5:28, No they have not sold the freeholds. They are carrying out a legal war of attrition against the good people who live at Safehaven.

      Being a good corporate citizen is not in the Dart lexicon, even when they are required to fulfill certain legal obligations.

      Knowing the way Dart operates, they will probably find that the CIG made a legal mistake and they are not required to sell the freehold which would then mean that North Sound Golf Course and surroundings could eventually become luxury houses and 10 storey condominiums.

      Sad but true.

      44
      9
      • Anonymous says:

        Does Dart own enough units to control the strata at Safehaven?

        16
      • Anonymous says:

        Redeveloping the golf course would be a self-own by Dart. Never going to happen. It is more likely they develop another golf course north of Safehaven.

      • Anonymous says:

        Safehaven was never meant to be a golf course. The original leaseholders (the Matalon family) had it as a residential development approved by Government. Only due to slow down in the economy in early 90’s did they change tack and decide to build the golf course.

        9
        5
        • Anonymous says:

          Rubbish! Not the plans I got from Savehaven.

          8
          5
          • Anonymous says:

            The only rubbish here is your reply. Do some actual fact checking before you decide to post. It was a residential plan.

            4
            6
            • Anonymous says:

              Perhaps you should do some fact checking 11:15.

              The golf course was an integral part of the Dragon Bay development in 2012 that was approved by CIG. Of course, there was a residential element too, but the golf course was the cornerstone.

              5
              2
        • Anonymous says:

          1:29, But the CIG did legally approve it from residential to recreational (golf).

          The people who bought condos and houses around the golf course assumed that the golf course was not going to be transformed into 10 storey condominiums.

          However, the CIG could have made a mistake with the land registry and Appleby will find it and that will be the end of the golf course.

          The mistakes through the years at the Land Registry are beyond belief.

          At the point now where we really must go to direct rule as we are incapable of doing things correctly. So many screw ups all round.

          11
          2
          • Anonymous says:

            Direct rule over this. You are fing mad. Have you had a good look at how screwed up the UK is right now. If it’s so good please go back. You’ll wish you hadn’t.

            3
            8
            • Anonymous says:

              11:20, You obviously have no idea how much money of public finances are being squandered here.

              If you did you would be pushing for direct rule.

              Of course if one is feeding at the public funded trough the last thing one would want is direct rule.

        • Johnny Canuck says:

          1:29, Look at the plans approved by the CIG for Dragon Bay in 2012. I did this when I bought at Safehaven a decade ago.

          The golf course was an integral part of the new development before Dart bought all of Safehaven a few years ago. The Blue Tip Course and North Sound Course were to be combined to make one 18 hole course according to the approved plan.

          10
          • Anonymous says:

            Ok, so this is back when Mike Ryan owned them. Why in the world would Mike Ryan want to take one 18-hole golf course and combine it with a 9-hole golf course to make one 18-hole golf course? But even if that was the plan because Mike Ryan wanted to develop some of the Safehaven/North Sound golf course for something else, I don’t understand what the gripe is with Dart? Instead of one 18-hole golf course attached to Dragon Bay, there are still two golf courses. Do people think one golf course is better than two? I’m not saying you’re complaining about this, I’m just having trouble figuring out what the issue is here.

            5
            5
            • Anonymous says:

              Simple, more land to build luxury houses and condominiums on.

              Note that Blue Tip is only 9 holes not 18. Many golfers do not want to play 9 holes twice.

              4
              1
    • Anonymous says:

      He’s here because the island is tax exempt and poorly governed. Perfect for vulture to pick out technicalities.

      49
      1
    • Dart Vader says:

      I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Oh I feel so bad, anyway, Let’s talk about Bodden Town where 40% of kids have experienced abuse.

    31
    12
    • Anonymous says:

      And, 8:42, BT where low socioeconomic economic locals and Jamaicans are building illegal lean-to low rent shacks, leaving abandoned vehicles and containers to rot at roadside, throwing garbage in other peoples land, stealing, selling drugs close to a church and abusing animals. Difficult to worry about the “harsh” life of Britannia and Safehaven owners able to afford big law firms to fight for them, isn’t it?

      25
      5
  17. Anonymous says:

    Sad day for Cayman.

    29
    6
    • Anonymous says:

      But a good day for the rule of law. The legal judgment was solid, whether you like it or not. That doesn’t mean Walkers won’t try to get Britannia owners to pony up more money to take it to the Privy Council.

      16
      18
    • Anonymous says:

      Ah, nostalgia to see the ‘Old Cayman’ as it were then.

      When Britannia was the Gold Standard of Cayman residence, at that time, anyway.

      At least the way it was before DART destroyed the place for
      all of us that have to live here.

      27
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        To be fair, it was Ivan that destroyed, the UDP that approved cutting a highway thru the tennis courts, but DART that chose to leave the hotel wreckage to be reclaimed by the jungle. The worst landlord/landowner in Cayman. Rather than fining this vulture landowner, the CIG awards them lucrative municipal public services contracts predicated on some kind of deliverable savvy they clearly don’t possess in-house.

        6
        2
  18. Your Master Uncle D says:

    Ha! I can’t believe you puny condo owning peasants thought you could take on your overlord and win. The insolence. I’ve allowed you to use my roads for Darts sake and this is my thank you?

    As punishment, I shall leave the Hyatt for another 10 years and for good measure, i will let Royal Palms, where you once laughed, danced and made friends, crunble and fall into the sea while I laugh at your stupid tears.

    78
    8
    • Anonymous says:

      Developers rule completely in the Cayman Islands.

      We get it.

      33
      • Anonymous says:

        The law is the law. Don’t like it? Elect different lawmakers or piss off somewhere else.

        9
        21
        • Anonymous says:

          Ooh, that post touch a nerve Dartbot?

          14
          5
        • Anonymous says:

          Rubbish the law as drafted is poor and lawyers dealing with it were poor the lawyers now all have different opinions of the interpretations of the law and the RAs as drafted. So Win win for the lawyers.

          11
        • Anonymous says:

          Makes no difference who one elects because all the elected officials are bought off by Dart and other real estate developers.

          12
          2
  19. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Dart will build a beautiful project in this area now. Thank you Appeal Court.

    14
    95
  20. Anonymous says:

    Good news for tarmac salesmen everywhere.

    33
    1
  21. Anonymous says:

    Of course, successive Cabinets have had the power to override and correct any errors in the Registry – to fortify multi-decade perceptions of confidence in property rights for our real estate sector, but have instead chosen the lane of the rogue preferred developer, and not because they are doing good here. This is the catalyst event, and next comes the international non-resident sell-off. We had a good run.

    63
    6
  22. Anonymous says:

    How is Dart allowed to quietly resume limited habitation of the derelict hotel on the lower floors? The hotel that doesn’t exist. We can see this from the ETH. Rules for thee…

    61
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      Dart kingdom come, thy will be done.

      Same as it ever was.

      42
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Is it inhabited or derelict? Make up your mind.

      18
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        It is both, derelict and inhabited. Check it out sometime.

        21
        2
        • Anonymous says:

          Does Planning Dept not have anyone employed just to drive around Cayman off the beaten path looking for the many shacks erected (. ( without permission of course) to house renters who cannot pay more than $400/500 a month?

          17
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        those two terms are not mutually exclusive

        12
        3
    • Anonymous says:

      Have you reported your perceived violations to the relevant authority?

      9
      2
      • Hubert says:

        8:07, Yeah, do you know how many people through the years have reported that the old Hyatt is a derelict building and should be legally cleaned up and brought down?

        Dart is clearly violating the law but the CIG is afraid to touch Dart as they are in Dart’s pocket.

        17
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        What purpose would that serve 8:07? You think anything would be done?

        9
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      There is a law relating to abandoned properties, but as usual no one willing to enforce it.
      Mustn’t upset the Darts right.?

      24
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      All you have to do is look at the Palm Heights Instagram account to Dart is using it as a gym and activities space. To make matters worse, they are selling these experiences as retreats for thousands of dollars to tourists! Also easily found on their official website.

  23. Anonymous says:

    One might suppose the owners will now have to sue to recover from all the deceptive real estate experts that over-promised rights over the years.

    60
    5
    • Hubert says:

      No doubt, years ago, the real estate people sold the owners of Britannia a lot of huge lies and deceptions.

      They were royally screwed investment wise.

      20
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        And the real estate sharks that did this to the owners should be the next in court.

        19
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Happens all the time in Cayman. Have a chat with a former “owner” of Indies Suites some time. Or the people who bought land on the golf course in Prospect. Realtors and developers have run roughshod over people here since the 1960s.

        13
    • Anonymous says:

      Blame the realtors for mistakes made by purchasers’ lawyer’s lack of due diligence..?

      7
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        Both parties play a part in this, as well as naive purchasers who often don’t use attorneys or engage the cheapest ones they can find.

        2
        5
  24. Anonymous says:

    Of course Britannia should appeal, all the way to the Privy Council if necessary. Appleby stating ‘By giving primacy to commercial certainty’ as far outweighing the needs of the individual is all you need to know!

    There was clearly no problem with the initial judgement and all Lands had to do was to look at the intent of the original encumbrances, and rectify them. Dart bought the property in full knowledge of the golf course.

    A resolution was not simply that the land would stay as is, instead a true ‘commercial settlement’ would have been where Dart was advised to compensate properly the owners of Britannia at a far greater level than any poor deal offered to date.

    if britannia give up now, they deserve all they didn’t receive. And they need better lawyers. This should go all the way to Privy Council, you’re letting Dart away with it here for no just reason…to allow the argument that it prevents our land registry collapsing is utterly nonsensical and Dart knows it

    86
    4
  25. Anonymous says:

    “Britannia owners were not willing to pay the considerable ongoing expense of fully maintaining a golf course” – factually incorrect. The Britannia owners were willing to meet the costs of providing golfing facilities to protect their rights

    50
    9
    • Anonymous says:

      Got proof? Publish it.

      17
      10
    • Anonymous says:

      …and non-Britannia golfers and visitors were happy to play the Nicklaus designed course. They used to have special golf balls for the course that were a golfers bucket item.

      10
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Nonsense. The course would lose millions. If it could make money, Dart would run it. But it can’t.

      4
      6
      • Anonymous says:

        Then the question is, Why buy a golf course if it is not commercially viable?

        Dart should have done their due diligence on the commercial nature of running the course before they bought.

        One should not buy a golf course then whine that one cannot make money running the course.

        6
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          Dart did their due diligence, it’s the Brittania owners who failed miserably in that regard.

          3
          5
        • Anonymous says:

          They wanted the land! Never interested in running it as a golf course

        • Anonymous says:

          Dart bought the “golf course” because it is many acres of North sound frontage land FOR DEVELOPMENT…!..next to Camana bay.
          That is why they have wriggled and connived to abandon the golf course.

          6
          1
        • Anonymous says:

          Dart can buy anything and do anything. The lawmakers bend over to accommodate.

      • Anonymous says:

        10:24, But Dart talks about building a second golf course north of North Sound Golf Club.

        Guess that will also not make money. 😝 😆 😂

        5
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          Dart bought the “golf course” because it is many acres of North sound frontage land FOR DEVELOPMENT…!..next to Camana bay.
          That is why they have wriggled and connived to abandon the golf course.

          3
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        It’s not the golf course that makes money, golf courses are built to attract sales of golf course front real estate/lots.
        That’s why Dart is not interested in running the golf course.

        2
        1
  26. Anonymous says:

    DART. Does anyone even like these people anymore? Shame

    52
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Par for the course with vulture capitalists. They are not friends of Cayman.

      44
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, Par for the Course….not many birdies but with a few double & triple bogies for the Brittania folks. Not to mention a somewhat Out-of-Bounds ruling, over a penalty zone.

        16
        • Anonymous says:

          Buying into Britannia was a trap to begin with. Next watch for the disputes with the Condo owners that “share” the building and costs at the Ritz.

          22
    • Anonymous says:

      Yes the ones who have the cushy high paying jobs or selling out for a high amount of cash just think he is the best guy ever!

      4
      3
  27. Anonymous says:

    So if the documents were incorrectly registered and government guarantees title do the Britannia owners sue government or the lawyers that registered the documents in the first place for compensation for loss of value of their premium units and rights? Should govt appeal…?

    47
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Could XXXX or CIG be sued next for failing to competently registering the easements on adjoining golf course land – the very land touted as the “Jack Nicklaus designed course”? There used to be prominent signage on entry at West Bay Road just north of Lone Star. There’s simply no room for misunderstanding the implicit and written perks of buying a condo in there. Dart continues to acquire assets while squirming out of longtime prescriptive liabilities on technicality. I hope Britannia owners appeal and win, for the security of property rights in the Cayman Islands. Never been a better time for the big realtor tycoons to pitch in.

      49
      3
    • Big Bobo In West Bay says:

      CIG will do nothing as they are all in the pockets of Dart completely.

      We really live not in the Cayman Islands but the Dartman Islands.

      Really wish we could have direct rule.

      So sad that we got ourselves into this situation.

      18
  28. Anonymous says:

    another cig(lands registrar) mess up…
    not sure where the problem is…they have their property and now don’t have to subsidise a loss making golf course…
    sales value have gone up in the interim with out the golf course

    19
    5
  29. Anonymous says:

    Actually, their correctly registered rights are indeed protected.

    31
    1
  30. Anonymous says:

    Guess the largest backers of the legal action saw the writing on the wall when they sold up and moved on.

    32
  31. Anonymous says:

    Rich people problems

    24
    41
    • Anonymous says:

      Unless your little 1/3 acre house lot has covenants in which case this means that your subdevelopment ‘restrictive agreements’ may or may not be enforceable. This is absolutely an ‘everyone’ problem. The CIG may need to look at the lands law and make some clear categories of what can be on the land register and what they mean and nothing else gets put on since the plain & understood meaning may not apply.

      43
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      12:06 pm you are wrong! In fact, this issue affects thousands of people in Cayman, many of whom are far from “rich” but who likely have NO idea their rights might have been trampled on. I sure hope the current Government commences an education campaign to help all people understand these very serious issues.

      42
      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Or, ask the GTN MP, who was a Minister in the previous PPM Government that made amendments to the Registered Land Law to accommodate Dart’s tunnels.

        24
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      So you are saying 12:23, that those people who hired Appleby decades ago, when they were buying their property at Britannia didn’t do their due diligence?

      That is a real stretch.

      Dart hired Appleby a few years ago and discovers that Appleby didn’t do their due diligence.

      Not a lawyer, but something seems wrong here.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Britannia owners should have accepted the settlement that was first offered years ago. Instead, they chose to fight when the legal documents were not in their favor.

    20
    47
  33. Anonymous says:

    The Britannia owners wanted to continue to use the golf course, but the land owner was not obligated to maintain a golf course. And the Britannia owners were not willing to pay the considerable ongoing expense of fully maintaining a golf course.

    So, as the appeal panel stated, this was a commercially impossible situation.

    20
    23

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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