Carry -v- Liston [2017] JRC 144 (08 September 2017)

Carry -v- Liston [2017] JRC 144 (08 September 2017)

The Court finds that the Plaintiff holds clear contractual title to the strip of land, as evidenced by hereditary contracts and boundary stones. Proprietary estoppel, as formulated in English law, is not recognised as conferring title in Jersey law. The Defendants' occupation was by license, not adverse possession or estoppel. The Court's equitable jurisdiction does not override clear contractual and customary rights where the law is unambiguous. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession.

Citation
[2017] JRC 144
Parties
Plaintiff: Joyelle Carry; Defendant: Michael Liston; Defendant: Lesley Liston
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Action Pétitoire (proprietary Action for Land Recovery) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's action succeeds; Defendants' claim for proprietary estoppel and relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Boundary Disputes, Equitable Jurisdiction, Contractual Title, Land Registration
Property Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Boundary Disputes Equitable Jurisdiction Contractual Title Land Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyelle Carry

Plaintiff

Michael Liston

Defendant

Lesley Liston

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action Pétitoire (proprietary Action for Land Recovery) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel forms part of Jersey law and can confer title to land
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants have acquired ownership or equitable relief over the strip of land
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce contractual and customary rights to recover possession

Ratio Decidendi

The Court finds that the Plaintiff holds clear contractual title to the strip of land, as evidenced by hereditary contracts and boundary stones. Proprietary estoppel, as formulated in English law, is not recognised as conferring title in Jersey law. The Defendants' occupation was by license, not adverse possession or estoppel. The Court's equitable jurisdiction does not override clear contractual and customary rights where the law is unambiguous. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action succeeds; Defendants' claim for proprietary estoppel and relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants ordered to cede enjoyment and possession of the strip of land to the Plaintiff.
  • Defendants condemned to pay the costs, recoverable and irrecoverable, of this action.