Carriacou Devcor Ltd v Margaret Corion and another (the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Samuel Corion, Deceased) (Grenada)

Where a conveyance describes land by general words but supplies no boundaries or plan, the court may consider the surrounding circumstances and reliable extrinsic evidence to identify the land intended. Such evidence cannot contradict the conveyance’s clear intention. The extent of the estate at the relevant date is ordinarily a question of fact. On a further appeal, concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed save in exceptional circumstances, particularly where local evidence and conditions are involved. A party asserting Crown ownership on the basis that land is foreshore must first plead and prove that it lies seaward of the mean high water mark. Only then does the evidential burden shift to the person claiming against the Crown.

The respondents claimed ownership of approximately seven acres of mangrove land in Carriacou as part of the Grand Ance estate conveyed to Samuel Corion in 1914. The conveyance contained no boundaries or plan. The respondents relied on historical conveyances, survey plans and other evidence. CDC maintained that the land belonged to the Crown and that its occupation was lawful.

The High Court of Grenada held that the respondents owned the disputed land. The Court of Appeal dismissed CDC’s appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to resolve the conflicting evidence and that the appellants had not established that the land was foreshore. The Attorney General’s separate appeal was withdrawn shortly before the Privy Council hearing. The central issues concerned the use of extrinsic evidence, concurrent findings of fact, and the burden of establishing the foreshore presumption.

Lord Lloyd-Jones delivered the judgment of the Board, with whom Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lady Rose and Lord Richards agreed.

1. Disposition. The appeal by CDC was dismissed. The Board would humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
2. Construction of the conveyance. A conveyance which identifies land by general words but does not describe its boundaries or include a plan may not, by construction in isolation, establish whether a particular parcel is included. The court may examine the surrounding circumstances and use extrinsic evidence to ascertain what the general description refers to, but cannot use such evidence to contradict the clear intention expressed in the conveyance. The Board applied the principles discussed in Eastwood v Ashton [1915] AC 900, Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894 and Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873.
3. Factual extent of the estate. Although the conveyance established the parties’ intention to convey all land known as the Grand Ance estate, the extent of that estate in 1914 was essentially a question of fact. The 1904 survey plan was the best objective evidence of the estate’s extent at that time, and the later plans provided substantial corroboration. The Board found an abundance of evidence supporting the concurrent findings that the disputed land formed part of the estate.
4. Concurrent findings. The Board applied its established practice, described in Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508, not to entertain a further appeal on questions of fact where two lower courts have made concurrent findings, absent exceptional circumstances. The rationale includes respect for local courts’ greater familiarity with local conditions, as approved in Dass v Marchand [2021] 1 WLR 1788. No exceptional circumstances existed.
5. Foreshore. CDC and the Attorney General asserted that the disputed land was Crown foreshore. They therefore had to plead and prove that it lay seaward of the mean high water mark before the presumption of Crown ownership could arise. Only then would the evidential burden shift to the respondents to establish the contrary. The evidence that the land was covered by seawater and used for fishing did not establish that it was below the mean high water mark. The concurrent findings against the foreshore case could not be disturbed.

1. Privy Council. In [2023] UKPC 1, the Board dismissed CDC’s appeal and advised that the respondents’ title be upheld.
2. Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Grenada). On 31 October 2019, the court dismissed CDC’s appeal and upheld the finding that the disputed land formed part of the Grand Ance estate. It also held that the appellants had not established that the land was foreshore.
3. High Court of Grenada. On 16 October 2018, Adrien-Roberts J held that the estate of Samuel Corion owned the disputed land.