Elgin Wright and others v Building Heritage Limited (Bahamas)

In proceedings under a statutory quieting-of-title procedure, an appellate court may permit fresh evidence to be considered where it is potentially critical to a claim and refusal to investigate it risks injustice. The procedure’s relatively informal character and flexible approach to evidence support a practical assessment of the new material. Delay, failure to file proper title material, and deficiencies in the conduct of the case remain relevant, but do not necessarily prevent relief where important documentary evidence has subsequently been discovered. The matter may be remitted so that the fresh evidence can be investigated with the existing claim.

The appellants, descendants of Albert Wright, pursued longstanding competing claims to land originally granted to Henry Wright Senior under the Quieting Titles Act 1959. After the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas rejected their application for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence, the Board granted permission to appeal.

The fresh evidence centred on a 1909 deed apparently conveying 40 acres from Henry Wright Senior to Albert Wright. The appellants also relied on evidence concerning the location of the land described in that deed. The central issue was whether the new material should be admitted and investigated despite the history of the proceedings and the appellants’ earlier failure to file abstracts of title.

1. The Board allowed the appeal and directed that the matter be remitted to a judge of the Supreme Court to be heard together with the claim already remitted by the Court of Appeal on 27 January 2010.

2. Under the Quieting Titles Act 1959, the procedure is relatively informal and adopts a flexible approach to the admission of evidence. Claims are advertised so that adverse claimants can present their claims and have them adjudicated together, with the aim of achieving finality. The Board referred to Armbrister v Lightbourn [2012] UKPC 40 for a summary of the Act’s provisions.

3. The 1909 deed was potentially critical evidence. On its face it provided clear evidence of an inter vivos disposition of four tasks, or 40 acres, from Henry Wright Senior to Albert Wright. Its significance depended on identifying whether the land described was part of the disputed land. Conflicting affidavit evidence about the relationship between Orange Hill and the Blue Hole meant that this question required investigation by the Supreme Court.

4. The appellants’ delay and their predecessors’ failure to file abstracts of title, despite legal representation, required due weight. Evidence that the person conducting the proceedings had developed Alzheimer’s disease and that the appellants had been badly let down by their lawyers was also relevant. In the circumstances, refusing to consider the deed created a risk of injustice, so the matter had to be remitted for determination on the fresh evidence.

• Privy Council: Elgin Wright and others v Building Heritage Limited (Bahamas) [2013] UKPC 10. Appeal allowed; the matter was remitted to a judge of the Supreme Court to be heard with the claim previously remitted by the Court of Appeal.
• Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: refused the appellants’ application for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence. The Court had earlier remitted a claim on 27 January 2010. An earlier application by the appellants to become parties to an appeal was refused on 21 February 2008.
• Supreme Court of the Bahamas: Thompson J gave judgment on 30 March 2007 in proceedings under the Quieting Titles Act 1959.