Homeowners win access rights fight with Dart
(CNS): Homeowners at Britannia Villas won an important legal battle on Monday, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) ruled in their favour over their disputed rights to access recreational facilities at the former Hyatt resort. The dispute between the Britannia residents and Cayman Shores Development Limited (CSDL), a subsidiary of the Dart Group, arose after it closed the golf course and prevented homeowners from accessing the beach and other facilities on the original Hyatt hotel site.
In 2016, Dart acquired the former Hyatt hotel and all its related facilities, which had been severely damaged by Hurricane Ivan in 2004. However, it allowed the already derelict property to deteriorate further, maintaining only the beachfront part of the property, which eventually became Palm Heights.
While the residents at Britannia, which was developed at the same time as the hotel, lost access to the part of the property destroyed by Ivan, they continued to have access to the beachside facilities, as well as the golf course, for many years.
But Dart has further development plans for the entire site and wants to exclude the Britannia owners from all of it, including the facilities they had previously enjoyed. This has led to a long, costly and frustrating legal battle for the homeowners, which began in 2020 when the owners, known in the case as Lion’s Court, challenged what Dart was doing.
In 2021, the Grand Court found that the rights of 190 homeowners in Britannia were still legally binding. Dart appealed that ruling, arguing that because those rights were not properly registered when they purchased their units, they were not transferable with the sale of the entire property. The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal’s 2023 ruling was in Dart’s favour.
However, the JCPC in London, which is the final court of appeal for the UK overseas territories, has reversed the appeal court ruling and reinstated the 2021 judgment of the Grand Court.
Despite the ‘mislabeling’ of the documents relating to the rights homeowners believed they had acquired permanently with their units when they bought them, the JCPC found that the documents clearly set out legally enforceable easements which determine what can be enforced, not what they were called.
The JCPC ruled that the Cayman appeal court got it wrong and the documents registered with the Land Registry clearly set out easement rights that were binding on future owners, even if the wording could be improved by correcting the documents that set out their rights.
In the wake of the final ruling in the case, Walkers, the lawyers acting for the Britannia homeowners, said the rights they were fighting for were not only promised to them when they purchased their units but were also recorded in the Land Register for more than thirty years.
“Following a protracted and hard-fought David and Goliath battle against companies within the Dart Group, the largest and best-resourced developer in the Cayman Islands, the owners are delighted that the Privy Council has once and for all confirmed and protected their property rights against opportunistic development,” a spokesperson for Walkers stated.
“The ruling is important not only in the context of the Britannia development, but also for residential owners elsewhere in the Islands when considering the security of their recreational and sporting property rights. The Britannia owners now look forward to re-establishing access and exercising their rights into the future, in addition to the assessment of the damages due to them following the 2021 judgment of the Grand Court,” the firm added.
Meanwhile, Dart issued a statement acknowledging the decision and saying it respected the ruling.
“The outcome, following differing decisions from both the Cayman Islands Grand Court and Court of Appeal, highlights the complex and unique circumstances that have surrounded this case for many years,” Dart stated. “CSDL remains committed to engaging constructively with the Britannia owners and looks forward to productive and collaborative dialogue to understand and discuss what the decision means for them and their community moving forward,” the firm added.
See the full ruling from the JCPC below:
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News
Jackie Doak repetitively stated they just wanted Clarity on the Matter and she also said at meeting that they just wanted to be good neighbours. Do good neighbours take their neigbours to court to strip them of their rights and benefits cost them US$5.0m in litigation costs. She has her Clarity now costing probably around $15.0m in litigation for Dart, Britannia and the Cayman Islands Government. Shame on Jackie Doak and Dart for this disgraceful treatment of their neighbours who have suffered through 9 years of this assault against the security of their homes.properties.
Who ownz the land lot being used as the Sandbar Events venue in Georgetown? First pavers went in over Covid, a tall wall now prevents a seaview or anccess and it’s a commercial venue site on what was once open access ironshore. Top marks to the person who can clarify the sneaky angle that is being played…
How many public ROW access swim sites are there in Georgetown. Shouldn’t these exist for G’towners?
I wonder who is on the chopping block to be fired for this colossal, potentially billion $, mistake
A Bold Vision for Affordable Housing and Our Future Workforce – With Accessible Financing
To the Editor, the Government, and the People of the Cayman Islands,
While our islands continue to flourish, we face an escalating challenge that directly impacts our future: affordable housing. This crisis disproportionately affects our low-income earners, especially those on the minimum wage of CI$6.00 an hour, making the dream of a secure home unattainable. This issue is set to become even more acute as we anticipate approximately 10,000 high school graduates entering our workforce over the next decade. Without accessible housing, we risk hindering their ability to contribute fully to our economy and society.
I propose a bold, yet practical, solution: a government-led initiative to construct 3,000 modern, energy-efficient, multi-family apartment units (one, two, and three bedrooms) and commit to reselling them at cost every four years to eligible low-income Caymanians. This plan isn’t just about providing homes; it’s about securing our economic future and supporting our youth.
Funding and Construction
The Cayman Islands Treasury Department can issue and float bonds specifically to finance the construction of these apartments. This smart financial strategy allows us to leverage our nation’s strong economic standing to address this critical social need without immediately burdening government budgets.
Our very own Cayman Islands Public Works Department (PWD) is ideally positioned to lead the construction. By utilizing the PWD, we can ensure efficient project management, maintain high construction standards, and keep costs transparent and controlled for the benefit of our citizens.
Truly Affordable Pricing & Accessible Financing
The core aim of this initiative is to directly ease the cost of living and housing crisis. We can price these homes to be genuinely affordable for low-income earners and our emerging workforce, with target resale costs of:
• CI$70,000 for a one-bedroom apartment
• CI$90,000 for a two-bedroom apartment
• CI$125,000 for a three-bedroom apartment
Crucially, to make these homes truly attainable, the Cayman Islands National Development Housing Trust could offer a fixed interest rate of 8% for mortgages on these apartments. This would result in significantly lower, potentially half, of the monthly payment costs compared to what is currently offered by retail and commercial banks, thereby removing a major barrier to homeownership for deserving Caymanians.
The Profound Impact on Our Community
Imagine the far-reaching benefits of this initiative:
• A Clear Path to Homeownership: This program would directly empower thousands of families, including our young graduates, to transition from a cycle of renting to building equity. This fosters greater financial stability and long-term security, allowing them to truly establish roots here at home.
• Alleviating the Housing Crisis: By introducing 3,000 affordable units into the market, we can significantly reduce pressure on rental prices and provide much-needed relief to a strained housing sector.
• Supporting Our Future Workforce: Providing genuinely affordable housing with accessible financing is crucial for retaining our talented high school graduates. It ensures they can afford to live and work in the Cayman Islands, contributing their skills and energy to our local economy for years to come.
• Economic Stimulus: A project of this scale would create significant, sustained employment opportunities in construction and related industries, providing a powerful boost to our local economy.
• Enhanced Social Equity: This is a fundamental step towards ensuring that the benefits of our nation’s economic success are shared more equitably among all Caymanians, improving overall quality of life and community well-being.
Implementing such a plan requires careful planning, transparent allocation, and robust management, but the benefits for our current residents and future generations are immeasurable. Let’s embrace a visionary approach to housing that truly serves the needs of all our people. By providing genuinely affordable homes with government-supported financing, we invest not just in buildings, but in the prosperity and well-being of every Caymanian family and the vibrant future of our islands.
A Concerned Caymanian Citizen
There are some glaring issues with your contribution:
1. What is your source of the evidence that drives your figures for the number of units needed?
2. You state: “Our very own Cayman Islands Public Works Department (PWD) is ideally positioned to lead the construction. By utilizing the PWD, we can ensure efficient project management, maintain high construction standards, and keep costs transparent and controlled for the benefit of our citizens.”, I ask: Since when is government able to be the most efficient manager and able to prudently control the costs of anything, much less construction of a multi-unit project of that magnitude?
3. You state: “A project of this scale would create significant, sustained employment opportunities in construction and related industries, providing a powerful boost to our local economy.” I ask: If PWD is used for the construction, how does this create employment opportunities in the construction industry? In light of the fact that a significant number of construction workers currently come from abroad, who is it befitting, job wise? It is even more problematic in light of the fact that imported workers compete with Caymanians for housing, especially in the lower tier properties–making rentals even more expensive.
4. Another gem is this: “Providing genuinely affordable housing with accessible financing is crucial for retaining our talented high school graduates. It ensures they can afford to live and work in the Cayman Islands, contributing their skills and energy to our local economy for years to come.” I ask: Retaining? Where else are they going to go to find more affordable housing and the jobs to pay for it? Where else are they going to live and work? It is not as if they can simply say to a host country: “Hello, I’m here! Provide me with housing, and provide me with a good job even though I have zero experience, and do both now!” Your statement just does not makes sense.
While your basic sentiment is laudable and the housing crisis does need to be squarely and urgently addressed, your plan does not appear to be practical.
Should have bought a clapped out old unit at Britannia when they were going cheap.
The biggest appeal I have ever heard in terms of that golf course is from my peers when playing the hole nearest the sea. Poseidon is sure not wanting when it comes to golf balls.
It will be interesting to see how much surveyors determine Britannia properties have been devalued by the interference with the owners’ easements over the last 7 years or so.
Back of the envelope – 200ish homes with an average value of, say, US$1.5m. Assume conservatively that values have been depressed by 20% – so roughly $300k loss of value per unit x 200 units = $60,000,000. Then there’s the value of 7 or 8 years’ worth of golf club membership and beach club membership which they’ve been deprived of. Let’s say another $3,000 per unit per year = so about another $5,000,000 total. Plus Britannia owners’ legal costs whatever those are, but I doubt Walkers come cheap.
If I were Dart I’d be looking to make a deal. As a starting point I’d get the gardeners around to replace the missing turf from the golf course – pronto.
Dart is not done with them yet, he can drag this out as long as he wants since no one in Cayman will do anything at all to the almighty boss. Look at how long he is leaving the old ramshackle Hyatt wreck sitting their. Good luck as we all know who will win in the long run.
Uh, no. This matter has been pronounced upon by the highest possible appeals court. There is nowhere else for Dart to go but to the negotiating table with Britannia. The Darts think they can do whatever they want – they aren’t the only people with money. If they don’t start right now, Britannia can take them straight to court again, this time over how much they’re owed. It is BRITANNIA that can make this as long and as painful and as expensive as they like, because they already won on the only merits that mattered, meaning they get their costs of any consequential litigation.
plus interest compounding daily please
whats up with cayman court of appeal..every decision seem to be overturned by the privy council? look at immigration point system…hope politics are being put to side …..
So, Britannia can operate the golf course. Should be fun to watch.
At least there’s a chance we can stop having to watch the preening collagen crew in the ‘exclusive’ sand pit at Tillies and instead enjoy the overcrowding by Britannia families with out of control children every Sunday
This is a strange ‘win’. My guess is dart does sweet nothing and lets the golf course sit there for decades. He’d probably shut the hotel also just for spite. Vulture does what vulture does.
lol. The Botox and platstic body crew. Faces like melted candles.
Rich vs. the Rich, The BT Owners know who they were dealing with and all involved should be ashamed of themselves. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
When will Mr. Dart get the old Hyatt torn down and clean that place up? Guess our government won’t say a thing about it.
Why should they say anything, Dart owns the whole bunch.
Off on a tangent, but the old golf course, could it be used for a battle royale/Hunger Games style event, in which all realtors take part? Last man/woman standing is then the sole realtor for all of Cayman.
Bill Clinton said of K. Dart: “I don’t know what he is up to now by donating money to our party, but I don’t want to go anywhere near this guy.” Yet Cayman politicians welcomed him with open arms. Greed choked puppy,
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/117822-vulture-funds-and-their-myths-about-argentina/
Ah yes Bill Clinton, that well known bastion of morality.
billy boy?….the friend of epstein???
kenny is irish…he good.
remember…we didn’t come to take part, we came to take over.
Oh boy. Wait until the general public find out our own Govt gave away The public beach in the NRA- ETH deal. How do people not wonder why the porta-potty vendor stands and cabanas are painted to match adjacent developments? or why the govt couldn’t enforce on illegal beach vendors (on private land)?
We all know who owns these islands……
in the Cayman Islands, the government can shut down illegal vendor operations even if they are located on private land. This authority is grounded primarily in the Trade and Business Licensing Act, which requires that any person conducting trade or business anywhere in the Islands, whether on public or private land, must hold a valid Trade and Business Licence. If a vendor operates without such a licence, they are committing an offence, and enforcement agencies such as the Department of Commerce and Investment are empowered to issue stop orders, prosecute offenders, and impose fines or other penalties. This applies regardless of who owns the land.
If the vendor constructs or places temporary structures (tents, booths, or tables) on the land without the requisite planning permission, the Planning Department or the National Conservation Council can also issue enforcement or removal notices under the Planning Act or the National Conservation Act. These powers are not dependent on whether the land is Crown or privately owned: they apply to unauthorised development or environmental breaches wherever they occur.
If the vendor’s operations create a nuisance orpublic health concern, or violate sanitation regulations, agencies like the Public Health Department and the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service may also intervene under applicable health and criminal statutes.
In practice, government agencies have exercised this authority repeatedly; for instance, shutting down illegal vending on or near Seven Mile Beach and in other districts, even where the activity was taking place on land that was not government-owned. The key legal principle is that compliance with licensing, planning, and environmental laws is mandatory; ownership of the land does not exempt anyone from those obligations.
Moreover, both the vendor and any landowner who knowingly allows or facilitates the illegal activity may be subject to enforcement action. If an illegal beach vendor operation is active on private land, then the proprietor is liable for prosecution as well.
Lets hope the gates planned to block acces throught Patrick Island/Poindexter Road (public road) are next to be removed.
“Planned”? The gates are there already, but they cannot close them because so many people use that portion of the Patrick Island road to access Prospect Primary and the East/West Arterial.
Correct. People should let the representatives (MP’s) of Red Bay/Prospect that gates should not not be closed and removed. Poindexter Road is a Public Road why should the community be denied access?
Wrong – The majority of Poindexter Road is private property – 24E 323rem2, 24E 473 and 25B 29 rem1
No problem, just give us the unrestricted access we requir, by law, to the parts that aren’t private.
Wrong. PI owns a small portion of the road, the vast majority of Poindexter is and has been public and maintained by NRA for many years now. The gates have been erected opening on the wrong direction which it is dangareous to the commuty at large. How this was approved by PAT is suspucious specially afer beibg denied a number of times bt the CPA.
just remember the Planning Board refused this and it was the Planning Appeals Tribunal that overturned it.
This is a win for the Caymanians also .
Mr. Dart this is a good lesson for failing to accept the indefeasible rights that Caymanians has long enjoyed to the beach.
This has nothing to do with beach access.
So I can plant my red beach umbrella amongst the yellow ones, and peaceably enjoy the beach without interference? Your concept of “access” (which doesn’t include use), and that enshrined in Cayman law, are two different things.
In the Cayman Islands the portion of beach below the mean high water mark is Crown land. There is usually a portion of dry land between the MHWM and the water. You can freely plant your umbrella on that land.
Irrelevant. The rights which exist by prescription include the entire width of the beach, from sea to natural vegetation line. Who owns it is an irrelevant consideration. The entire public has an unfettered right to peaceably enjoy it.
Not at all irrelevant.
In the Cayman Islands, as in other common law jurisdictions, prescriptive rights, such as the public’s right to access and use a beach, are acquired through long, uninterrupted, and peaceable use over a specific, defined area of land. In the case of beach access, this typically means use over the portion of land between the sea and the natural vegetation line, exercised over a period of at least 20 years. Such rights do not depend on ownership of the land but arise from consistent historical use.
However, prescriptive rights are inherently tied to the SPECIFIC land over which they were exercised. They do not float or migrate.
Erosion is a very relevant factor. If erosion physically removes the portion of the beach that was historically used by the public, then the land to which the prescriptive right attached no longer exists. Once the physical substrate of the easement is destroyed, the right is extinguished. It does not shift inland to new land that was not subject to the same historical use. The public would not automatically acquire a right to access further inland, unless they had also used that land for the requisite prescriptive period.
This principle is consistent with long-established common law doctrine. Courts have held that easements must exist over identifiable, physical land. Once that land is destroyed or permanently altered in such a way that it no longer supports the original use, the easement ceases. In other words, the legal right dies with the land it was exercised over.
Therefore, if the sea encroaches and removes the area the public once used, no basis remains for claiming a continued prescriptive right inland.
The implication for public beach access in Cayman is significant. As beach erosion accelerates due to natural or human causes, prescriptive rights acquired through historical use are vulnerable. Unless the public also used the now-inland areas consistently over time, they would have no legal claim to access those parts based on prescription. In light of this, relying solely on prescriptive rights to protect public beach access is folly.
Many jurisdictions facing similar issues have chosen to legislate explicit public access rights, independent of prescription. One splendid example is that the United Kingdom’s Marine and Coastal Access Act provides a statutory framework to ensure continuous public access to the coast, regardless of changes to the physical shoreline. Cayman should adopt a similar approach to preserve public beach access in perpetuity, regardless of erosion or shifting boundaries. Without such legal reform, access rights based on prescription will remain vulnerable to the literal disappearance of the land on which they depend.
This is separate and apart from the coastline – wherever that may be. Something inherent in any seafaring island – and long intrinsic in our culture an way of life.
11:42:
Exactly the point I originally made and when read with my followup regarding prescriptive rights to an easement:
There is usually a portion of dry land between the HWM and the water’s edge. The public can freely traverse and enjoy the use of that land. The public has a common law right to access and use the foreshore (below the HWM), particularly for navigation over, fishing, and recreation, unless lawfully excluded (for example, for purposes of national security or environmental regulations).
My followup expressed the fact that a prescriptive right to an easement, or indeed a specified registered easement, can literally be eroded away.
Easements–whether created by prescription (after 20 years of continuous use under the laws regarding prescription) or formally registered–are rights over specific and defined physical land. If erosion or sea level rise physically destroys the land that formed the subject of the easement, the easement is extinguished.
Erosion can also affect the expanse of the land between HWM and waterline. As the beach is eroded and the slope of dry and gets steeper, the distance between the HWM and waterline can in some cases be reduced to nearly zero. We can see that in many cases relative to areas of sandy beach.
I surmise from what a couple of my Dart-associated friends have said is that since the Privy ruling referred to the specific easement set forth in the document and that easement might have been affected by erosion, Dart’s legal team is looking into that very issue.
I ain’t over until it’s over. And it might not be over yet.
Ken doesn’t want us walking through his garden to get from the southern end to northern end of the beach? And who gave permission for the dock?
26/06/2025 at 6:32 pm – it wasn’t a dock when planning permission was given..
The point is this case wasn’t about “indefeasible rights that Caymanians has long enjoyed to the beach”.
Yes it was. Britannia owners are Caymanians too – and they were seemingly being denied the ability to use and enjoy the beach.
No they weren’t.
any excuse for a bit of dart bashing by the gutter people.
“Gutter people”?
In this case, Dart got bashed up side of the head by the harsh reality of law as dished out by the KPC justices. Lords all.
Better inform yourself, it is a defining judgement and Dart must now respect it and restore the beach accesses he blocked.
What the Britannia owners claim to want, they can’t afford.
6:44:
They could afford to take Dart’s ass to court to maintain what was theirs. And they won.
They haven’t won shit.
5:34:
Au contraire, mon ami insensé. They won their case.
Final scorecard at the buzzer:
Britannia Owners…1
Dart……………0
politicians cant help ya at the privy council level! more lawsuits to come as the ppl fight for fairness and equality! keep it up ppl…we survived abd thrived prior to dart….
Corrupt politicians and Court of Appeal apparently.
But but but, I thought Dart was always right, and always had the best legal team…, basically best of everything. Guess not.
Not the UK legal version
Or the Cayman version. Walkers ran rings around Appleby. Dart in-house legal team didn’t know what was going on.
Doesn’t help that Dart seems to think American law prevails and not just in relation to property rights.
“darts in house legal team”!! You’ve met them, right?
Well done Walkers…Appleby’s years of arrogance slapped in the face.
Told Dart they’d lose years ago. Told them they’d lose again at PC… the money and stress they could’ve saved everyone. SMDH.
Lose again at the PC – did you tell them they would win at the Court of Appeal 😝
Enjoy it while you can because boss Dart and his groupies will soon get this thrown out.
CNS: The JCPC is the final court of appeal. There is no further legal action that Dart can take. It cannot get “thrown out”.
Maybe not legal but there are more than one way the Dart goon squad will get even with those homeowners. Just wait and see.
While good for the Britannia owners, on a practical basis not much is gained. There is no longer a golf course, which was the predominant property benefit. The former tennis courts have a highway going through them. Perhaps the use of Palm Heights facilities might have some benefit. And presumably they should be able to recover some of their legal costs.
Much of Britannia is showing its age, some condo buildings approaching 40 years.
I agree except that the bypass right of way was there before the tennis courts, it had been on the master transportation plan since the 70’s.
That’s correct, and it was a condition for that entire development that the road go through when it was time to build the road. The developers just said ‘yeah that’ll never happen’.
The main benefit is that Dart will not have free reign to develop the golf course, which could have been a disaster for those living on the golf course side of Britannia.
Not a golfer – but what would 10 years of deprivation of golfing amenities be worth to someone who literally bought their home on that promise? Do they get 20 year free use of the Blue Tip course at the Ritz as fair compensation (same owner) for that indignity?
Palm Heights Pool looks about to get busy, but where will everyone park?
Could try walking
Ever play Frogger?
Except they’d be trespassing.
“‘Beach Club Rights’
means the non-exclusive right together with Cayman Hotel its
agents, servants, licensees, invitees, the guests of the Hyatt
Hotel and other Britannia condominium owners to enter upon
the Beach Club property and enjoy the restaurant, beach and
watersport facilities situated thereon upon payment of any fees,
charges, or costs in force from time to time in respect thereof
including but not limited to any fees payable by virtue of any
by-law applicable to a strata lot.
As a licensed premises it must be open to the general public, whether or not they are a Britannia owner.
The enjoyment of the beach is available to everyone, by prescriptive right.
The pool was part of the facilities formerly available to Britannia owners, and which they have (it appears) been deprived of.
I love the fact that all guests of the Hyatt Hotel (doesn’t say which one) can use the facilities.
Someone failed law school early on
Obviously a Dart YES! supporter who has not traveled. 40 year old concrete buildings are nothing compared to builds that are 100’s of years old around the global while some historical building are 1000’s of years old.
Popularity of golf has exploded on the island in last 10 years. Britannia could turn it into a nice earner.
Could even potentially be responsible for producing some of the rising Caymanian golf stars, which we have seen a couple of in the last few years, that might just need a golf course to practice and develop their skills.
It is incredibly expensive to operate and maintain a golf course in Cayman. More importantly, the value of that land for use in development is multiples of any potential small profit to be derived from a small golf course.
Ok Dart
But isn’t the point that Dart owns the land but Britannia have the right to run it as a golf course? That being the case the value of land is irrelevant. If I were a Britannia owner I’d operate it on the cheap as a rough and ready golf course that costs the strata no more than a couple of salaries and mowers.
The golf course was sold as an amenity to the hotel guests and as part of the package to Brittania unit proprietors.
Buyer beware
And a fortune in water bills to keep green.
Nothing about golf in Cayman or ever will be. Britannia owners likely know only too well how much it will cost them if they really want a golf course. They will never be able to reach consensus to pay what it would take, it will never happen.
*…golf in Cayman is profitable or ever will be.
you don’t understand the economics of golf in cayman and the reasons why Britannia shut.
dart loses hugely on Ritz and north sound…but keeps them open for the sake of the island generally and it’s dire need for amenities
lmao yeah what a saint, keeping that golf course open to the benefit of all of us plebs.
if that dart was the demon ppl think he is…he would close both golf courses tomorrow and re-develop the land with residential lots/apts/houses
At US$160 a round. Non membership green fees.
That pricing puts in largely out of regular use for a lot of people. I get that it’s expensive to operate., but what isn’t expensive here now? Many of the island corporate entities however do cover a lot of costs with memberships, sponsorship and signature events.
Next chess move by Dart is to buy out all Brittania owners and remove the legally binding rights completely. This last move literally had Dart sacrifice his Queen.
Huh? What do you mean by sacrificing the Queen?
I guess you don’t understand the game of Chess ♟️
Really? Excellent news!
I don’t think you understand what ‘literally’ means.
/ˈlɪɾərəli/ /ˈlɪtərəli/ The adverb literally means “actually”.
Your chess analogy is lacking.
In chess the opponent is compelled to move. In this case, none of the owners are compelled to sell. In the case of the property rights Dart was checkmated and now the board is reset.
Good to see. Well done Britannia owners.
Hello all
I recently had some difficulty with my neighbours which has led to a protracted and expensive legal battle. It has taken a real toll on me emotionally and financially. To make a long story short, I need to get my hands on about 200 large yellow beach umbrellas as soon as possible. If you are in a position to provide these and offer a meaningful discount it would be much appreciated, as I am currently down to my last ten billion dollars.
I’m really hoping there’s a good Samaritan out there who will help me at this difficult time.
Yours truly
A weary but hopeful stranger
How long before Palm Heights closes out of spite just to show those peasants who is still boss? Put up the fences and turn off the leaf blowers boys…..we’re are going home.
They overplayed their hand. The veneer has worn through. Their potential in Cayman destroyed by the arrogance of some of their own executives. Steam-rolling their literal neighbours and not even willing to apologise.
“Their own executives”….the smirking she who must be obeyed comes to mind.
Also need to reign in the real estate and development cartel who are hell bent on building more and selling more of the Cayman Islands to foreigners. Fed up with poverty, crime, destruction and housing crisis whilst luxury investment keeps getting all the gongs off our blind faith.
haha…no-one wins in this….britannia strata fees will treble like the ‘good old days’…..
Make golf great again
Smithers, release the hounds!
or whatever the Dart equivalent is.
“They’re saying ‘Boo-urns!'”
Can someone ask Jackie Doak to bring back the grass from her house now?
Glad some of the smugness has been wiped off these tyrants faces.
Taken down a peg or two much..?
Doubt it…the smirk is fixed and entitlement too entrenched and protected by nouveau wealth.
All within the protections of a Mac-issued status grant.
It’s very telling that DRCL continue to maintain their preference to indulge further delay to “learn and understand” if Britannia stakeholders grasp the full scope of the ruling against the landowner, ie. the full scope of resources and facilities that must now be restored with priority, in addition to costs, penalties, etc. Keep that Walkers tab open!
Agreed, I would print a copy of the PC decision and head down to Tillies and park myself on the beach.
You don’t even need the PC decision. You have (and always have had) an absolute and indefensible right to peaceably enjoy the entirety of the beach, from sea to natural vegetation line.
If anyone tries to interfere with your reasonable and respectful enjoyment of that right, you can take them to the PC yourself, or faster and more efficient, video them attempting to impose their entitlement culture on you and send the video to Sandy. If it is a foreigner, copy immigration. If it is a business, copy the dci.
Enough is enough.
Prescription Act:
Effect of twenty years use by the public or any class of the public of a beach and of means of access thereto
4. (1) When any beach has been used by the public or any class of the public for fishing, for purposes incident to fishing or for bathing or recreation, and any road, track or pathway passing over any land adjoining or adjacent to such beach has been used by the public or any class of the public as a means of access to such beach, without interruption for twenty years, the public shall, subject to the provisos hereinafter contained, have the absolute and indefeasible right to use such beach, land, road, track or pathway, unless it appears that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing.
but the developers removed the natural vegetation line so where is that ‘line’ visible now? All to get an obstructed view of the sea – which they really get when there’s a hurricane- the natural vegetation line also encompassed the apex or natural beach ridge. And we wonder why 100s of feet of beach sand is eroded.
The visible line is where the closest established tree is. If a developer chose to remove everything on the sea side of their property, it would seem the public can enjoy free access to the entire area. The alternative is to replant native vegetation or put a respectful “rope” in the appropriate place – as exists in front of the Governor’s house.
Yes, sign me up. You get to feature in untold selfies taken by the ‘Influencers’ that flock down there on a daily and nightly basis.
The beach isn’t anything like it was in the olden days , under the original Hyatt banner with Hemmingways as the main beach venue for dining on the property . You can’t help but notice that the Dart-Decco-Jackie consortium destroy everything that used to be great that we enjoyed in Cayman, by turning it into their vision of what we should have.
So… they confirm their “respect” for the decision of the highest court? The arrogance inherent in that statement is worrying.
Why not just admit – “we were wrong, and we are sorry”?
A win for the “little guys”
I’m sure DART is shocked.
Dear CNS,
An article should be written about how the 192+ proprietors deserve a formal apology from DART for wasting their time, energy and money over the last 10 years. This was meant to be some people’s dream retirement home that they spent all their hard earned savings on, only for it to be arbitrarily and unlawfully torn apart by a vulture capitalist organisation.
One owner developed parkinsons disease from the stress of the ordeal and others have sold as a result of having to foot the legal bill for an entirely unnecessary legal case from a ruthless billionaire.
Also, Wendy a point of clarification, DART sued the owners of Britannia at the outset and not the other way around.
Not to mention the grass removed from the golf course that the Grand Court ruled to be unlawful. The behavior of this organization has been shockingly anti social and never in good faith. Seems to be doing something similar with the Waterways property. This should be brought to light and scrutinized.
The lady in charge has shown no respect to the good people of Britannia and Waterways. This awful corporate behavior must end now. If not, I call on the premier to publicly request an apology from the organization.
You clown. One does not “develop Parkinson’s” from stress.
Living in close proximity to a golf course however, has been associated with an increased risk….
Google is your friend. Stress may not be a direct cause of Parkinson’s – but it can certainly “unmask” and worsen it.
Not very compassionate, are you?
On a separate note: if someone takes the turf from my golf course preventing me from playing golf at my house, and puts it down as their lawn, at their house, can I golf there instead?
You don’t own a golf course, do you?
If you think someone developed Parkinson’s from stress, as was stated before you tried to twist it, take it to court.
I do not have to own a golf course for it to be “mine”, just like I do not have to own a beach access for it to be “mine”.
In relation Parkinson’s, this link may be helpful: https://www.parkinson.org/blog/science-news/stress-management-impact
“I regret that ill-conceived actions have caused stress, anxiety and tremendous expense to others for a decade” would be a nice grouping of words to contemplate – as a possible alternative to “You clown”.
If you don’t own it, it’s not yours.
So only beach owners have beach access in your world?
I do not own a golf course. Or a former golf course.
Do you?
Is that what you said last time someone stood up to you and refused to yield?
How did that work out?
It was reported in the grand court hearing that the greens ended up at the kimpton and Jackie doaks lawn
Jackie Doak’s lawn I can understand, but the KIMPTON…??
Who the hell do they think they are, Jackie Doak.???
Great example of entitled self important shameless behavior.
and aha! This is what Britannia owners want…complimentary memberships at North Sound.
And Blue Tip. Doesn’t DART own them both?
You’re an idiot. Stress is a well known and documented trigger for the onset of Parkinsons, and for the exacerbation of existing symptoms.
3:44pm you may need an IQ test.
Little guys? Britannia owners are well off expats/paper Caymanians. This was rich vs rich.
See the quotation marks? It is humor for the educated.
If a gram of sand represents a million dollars, a billionaire would have a kilogram (2.2 lbs) of sand. Just because someone has their entire net worth in one apartment doesn’t make them particularly wealthy.
When can I book a tee time?
Please wait a bit it’s only breakfast time.
even less likely now….
Never
A hearty congratulatory hand shake to the Britannia homeowners. Sadly, the average Caymanian cannot afford to defend their tenancy rights in the local courts, much less at the Privy Council level…
agreed, don’t ever think Dart is doing this out of the goodness of their heart.They are calculating vultures at the end of the day who don’t expect people to stand up to them.The costs were astronomical.Luckily Dart is going to have to refund the homeowners but I no a lot were struggling to pay the assessments over the years this has been going on
The right to access the beach and many of the related facilities was not reserved to Britannia owners. The general public has that right, whether by prescription, or by virtue of the licensing of the businesses concerned.
This is all intertwined with the diminution of the public’s right of peaceable enjoyment of beaches, shorelines and waterways all around the Islands.
The government agencies concerned appear directly complicit in the treatment of the general public (and Britannia owner’s) rights.
Time for our leadership to resolve this issue once and for all, and to return Cayman to the open society we once enjoyed, will all the rights, privileges and obligations inherent in that.
An unanimous PC verdict: hopefully all can now clearly view the actor we are dealing with. Restoring lawful ROW public access to what’s left of the beach, needs to be an urgent priority with a regime that stands against corruption. The array of walls and tunnels to nowhere need to be (a) incorporated into an actionable development plan that incorporates public ROW, or (b) removed permanently with a short term deadline for action. Previous live agreement obligations to pass through gifted title need to be honored, or that land forfeited back to the Crown for non-compliance.
Remove that ugly grey non purpose monstrosity of a tunnel on West Bay Road! Really adds to the amnbience beauty of a small Caribbean Island!
There is no tunnel, it is a bridge.
It is the wall Ken Dart wanted to build in front of his property from the beginning. Pay attention when you drive through it next time. There used to be three roads into Dart’s property – two sides roads that curved to connect to the main drive, and the main drive, which had a big hump in it so you couldn’t see the house or the rest of the drive. Now, the tunnel ends and there is only the northernmost side road left. That entire thing was a ruse to hide Dart’s property further. It was built as this hulking monstrosity because supposedly it was going to have a hotel on top of it. LOL. As if Ken Dart was going to build a hotel able to look in on his house!!!
There must not have been a single brain cell on the government side when they approved this – not one between every person in the room.
It’s not a tunnel. It’s not a bridge. It’s a wall connected to some raised walkways.
It also blocks various registered public rights to the beach. Why is public lands commission silent?
a bridge to where?
I hope they do, but that is all part of Darts 50 storey monstrosity plan.
Haha Dart take that!