Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
    • Transcript Requests
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Court of Appeal Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • JEI Programme
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » LAWRENCE LYNFORD WYLLIE v CLAIR URBAN OTTLEY et al

    1
    SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 575 OF 2000
    BETWEEN:
    LAWRENCE LYNFORD WYLLIE
    Complainant
    and
    1. CLAIR URBAN OTTLEY
    2. EILEEN AGATHA OTTLEY
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Mr. Arthur Williams for the claimant
    Mr. Joseph Delves for the respondent
    ——————————————–
    2001:November 21, 22, 28.
    ——————————————–
    JUDGMENT
    ALLEYNE J.
    [1] In the course of the hearing Counsel agreed that the issues in this case are
    confined to the question of the location of the right of way, and if it was on the
    same path as the road built by the defendant, whether the defendant has excluded
    the claimant from the use as of right of the said way for the duration of the relevant
    limitation period.
    [2] The court heard the viva voce evidence and cross-examination of the claimant, of
    his witness George London, and of the first-named defendant. In addition the
    court had before it the witness statement of the claimant’s witness Vincent Bailey,
    who died recently, and whose evidence was therefore not tested by cross2
    examination. This evidence is consequently not admissible, bearing in mind the
    provisions of CPR 2000, R 29.2(1)(a), 29.2(2), and the related learning in Civil
    Procedure 2000 (The White Book) Volume 1 paragraph 32.5.3. The court also
    had before it the evidence by way of witness statements of the defendants’
    witnesses Nolan Marks and Henrick Bullock, whose evidence Learned Counsel for
    the claimant admitted from the Bar is true and unchallenged. Counsel consented
    to this evidence being admitted without the necessity of calling the witnesses in
    person.
    [3] Further the court had the advantage of visiting the locus in the presence of
    Counsel, the parties and the relevant witnesses, a visit which was most helpful in
    clarifying the issues in dispute and in the court’s assessment of the evidence.
    [4] Also in evidence was the report of licensed Land Surveyor C. Mc Arthur
    Robertson, dated July 6, 2001, as well as the several deeds on which the titles of
    the claimant and the defendants are based.
    [5] The common predecessor in title of the parties is Sydney Ottley, father of the
    defendant, now deceased. By Indenture dated the 31st March, 1962, he, as
    vendor, conveyed to N.A. Commissiong, Superintendent Minister of the Methodist
    Church for and on behalf of the Methodist Missionary Trust Association, a certain
    portion of land at Evesham “TOGETHER with a right of way six (6) feet wide
    leading to and from the Public Highway ….”.
    [6] The precise location of the right of way is not set out in the deed, nor in deed No.
    1520/1970, which conveys the said land to the claimant from the Methodist
    Church. In fact the latter deed makes no specific reference to the right of way, and
    the deed whereby the defendant obtained his title, dated September 3, 1971 and
    recorded as deed No. 27/1972 also fails to make reference to the right of way
    which had been created by the vendor of both portions of land, for the benefit of
    the dominant tenement, i.e. the land of the claimant.
    3
    [7] The court’s visit to the locus made it apparent that the right of way created by the
    deed of 1962 is the only reasonable access to the claimant’s land, and that if the
    said easement had not been conferred by the deed, the claimant’s predecessor in
    title would have been entitled to claim from the vendor, the defendant’s father and
    the parties’ common predecessor in title, an easement of necessity over the land
    now held by the defendant, the servient tenement.
    [8] Since the sale of the two pieces of land, the defendants have cut the land sold to
    them so as to construct a road to their land, thus altering significantly the
    topography of the land, and making it impossible to precisely locate the right of
    way. Even the common boundary between the parties has not been established
    with precision, and the deeds are not entirely helpful in that regard. The surveyor
    in his report admits to the uncertainty regarding the common boundary.
    [9] It became apparent from the evidence and the visit to the locus, however, that the
    said easement, being six feet in width, would extend approximately from the
    bottom of the bank along the line demarcated by the points M6 to M5 on the plan
    prepared by the Surveyor Robertson. This area, within the boundaries of the
    servient tenement, would encroach, to some extent, on the defendant’s concreted
    wheel tracks, but would not include the entire road comprised of the said wheel
    tracks.
    [10] It being impossible to precisely locate the right of way given the radically altered
    topography of the land as a result of the cutting of the road and subsequent
    erosion of the bank, it is necessary to define an access path which is practical and
    realistic, which can only follow the path at the foot of the bank to the west of the
    road cut and paved with wheel tracks by the defendants.
    [11] It is declared that the claimant is entitled to pass and repass, for the purpose of
    access to and egress from his land, along a six foot wide strip of land bounded on
    the western side by the line demarcated by the points M6 to M5 on the plan
    surveyed and drawn by C. Mc Arthur Robertson, licensed Land Surveyor and
    4
    admitted in this action as exhibit S.D.5, and running in a northerly direction to the
    entrance to the claimant’s land, demarcated on the said plan by the points M5 and
    M4.
    [12] I find as a fact that the claimant had never abandoned the use of this easement,
    and that the defendant had never dispossessed him thereof.
    [13] The claimant is entitled to the injunction claimed, and it is ordered that the
    defendants be restrained, and they are hereby restrained, whether by themselves,
    their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from molesting the claimant, his
    servants and or agents or visitors from using and enjoying the said easement of
    way for the purpose of access and egress to and from his said property.
    [14] I award damages against the defendants in the sum of two hundred dollars
    ($200.00), and costs of the claim to be agreed or assessed.
    [15] The defendants are entitled to the declaration of title claimed in their counterclaim,
    subject to the easement of way hereinbefore referred to, and it is accordingly
    declared that, subject to the claimant’s said easement of way, the defendants are
    the sole owners in possession of the said concreted roadway.
    [16] I find no ground for the defendants’ claims for injunctive relief, and the
    counterclaim for said relief is dismissed.
    [17] I make no order for costs on the counterclaim.
    Brian G.K. Alleyne
    High Court Judge

    /lawrence-lynford-wyllie-v-clair-urban-ottley-et-al/
     Prev
    IN THE MATTER of an application by the Heirs of Stanley Malaykhan
    Next 
    STEPHANIE SEALES BY HER ATTORNEY ON RECORD EWART KING v LEON GRANT
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2022 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more