Anthony Armbrister and Cyril Armbrister (as personal representatives of the Estate of Francis Armbrister) v Marion E Lightbourn and Robin Mactaggart Symonette (in her capacity as the sole surviving executrix of the Estate of Sheila M Mactaggart – substituted Petitioner for Sheila M Mactaggart) (Bahamas)

In quiet-title proceedings under the Quieting Titles Act 1959, the court may use any evidence that satisfies it of the truth, and appellate review of concurrent findings is justified where inadequate analysis creates a risk of miscarriage. A rule that land of a dissolved corporation automatically reverts to its grantor was not a sufficient basis for title against the Crown. The Board declined to treat that principle as established in Bahamian law before 1926 and held that the freehold vested in the Crown. An equity of redemption remains an estate in land. Where a conveyance leaves the land or interest transferred unclear, extrinsic evidence may resolve the uncertainty. Factual possession depends on the nature and ordinary use of the land. Open owner-like acts through agents may establish possession of remote land, while general evidence that does not identify the area will not.

The proceedings arose from a petition under the Quieting Titles Act 1959 concerning title to Freeman Hall South, a large tract on Cat Island, and a separate 15-acre coastal area formerly within the Village Estate. The trial judge granted the petitioners certificates of title to both areas on 30 January 2007. On 25 June 2009 the Court of Appeal allowed the adverse claimants’ appeal concerning the 15 acres but dismissed their appeal concerning Freeman Hall South.

The Armbrister representatives appealed in relation to Freeman Hall South. The respondents cross-appealed concerning the 15 acres. The Board considered the alleged reverter of corporate land on dissolution, the construction of the 1895 conveyance, and the evidence of adverse possession.

Lord Walker delivered the judgment of the Board.

1. Disposition and review. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed. The Board was entitled exceptionally to review the concurrent conclusions on Freeman Hall South because neither court had properly analysed the evidence and there was a risk of miscarriage of justice. This reflected the approach in Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd [1975] AC 464.
2. Reverter. The English authorities did not establish a coherent or satisfactory basis for applying the Blackstone principle to freehold land acquired for full consideration by a commercial company. The Board regarded Hastings Corporation v Letton [1908] 1 KB 378 as wrongly decided, treated Morris v Harris [1927] AC 252 as carrying little weight on the point, and noted the justified doubts expressed in In re Wells [1933] 1 Ch 29. It declined to decide that the Blackstone principle formed part of Bahamian law before the 1926 enactment. On that basis, the Sisal Company’s freehold land vested in the Crown on dissolution rather than reverting to William Armbrister.
3. Mortgage. The 1901 mortgage did not prevent that vesting. An equity of redemption is an estate in real property, as explained in Casborne v Scarfe (1738) 1 Atk 603.
4. The 15 acres. The 1895 conveyance was prepared by a skilled conveyancer and its wording indicated a separate grant of 85 acres, leaving 15 acres retained by William Armbrister. The colouring of the plan was erroneous. Where a conveyance does not clearly define the land or interest transferred, extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine the parties’ meaning, following Eastwood v Ashton [1915] AC 900, Watcham v Attorney General of the East African Protectorate [1919] AC 533 and Scarfe v Adams [1981] 1 All ER 843. The correspondence and survey plan in 1966 clearly identified the 15 acres.
5. Adverse possession. Factual possession depends on the nature of the land and the way land of that kind is ordinarily used or enjoyed. The claimant must have dealt with the land as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it, and no one else must have done so. Applying J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30 and Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P & CR 452, the Armbristers’ use of overseers, sharecropping arrangements, a bulldozer road, paid removal of rock and recreational use established possession of Freeman Hall South.
6. Cross-appeal. The petitioners’ evidence concerning the 15 acres was general and formulaic and did not establish possession of that particular area for the requisite period. The Armbristers’ identification and claim in 1966 were inconsistent with the alleged 20 years of undisturbed possession. The Armbristers were therefore entitled to the certificate of title to Freeman Hall South, and retained their entitlement to the certificate concerning the 15 acres.

Written submissions on costs were directed within 14 days.

1. Privy Council — On 11 December 2012, the Board allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The adverse claimants were directed to receive a certificate of title to Freeman Hall South, in addition to their existing entitlement concerning the 15 acres. [2012] UKPC 40
2. Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas — Judgment dated 25 June 2009. The court allowed the adverse claimants’ appeal concerning the 15 acres but dismissed their appeal concerning Freeman Hall South.
3. Trial court — Jeanne Thompson J gave a written ruling on 30 January 2007 granting the petitioners certificates of title to both disputed areas.