Court grants time extension after late appeal in apartment ownership dispute

The Court of Appeal has emphasised that the only reason it granted an extension of time to an applicant who waited for two and a half years to take steps to initiate an appeal against a Supreme Court ruling was because he had a good case.

Anthony Brown, who had been living in Canada for several years, was given the go-ahead last month for his appeal to be heard.

Justice Judith Pusey had ruled in May 2021 following a claim filed by Dadrie Nichol that she and Brown were joint registered owners of an apartment and that the property should be sold and the proceeds of the sale divided equally between them.

Last month, the Court of Appeal heard the applications for extension of time and a stay of execution which were filed on October 19 last year, and ordered Brown to file and serve his appeal by January 12.

Brown gave various reasons why the case was not contested in the Supreme Court.

In granting the extension, Justice Patrick Brooks, president of the Court of Appeal; Justice Almarie Sinclair Haynes, and Justice David Fraser considered the degree of prejudice to the other party.

“There is no irremediable prejudice to Ms Nichol. She has not been in possession of the apartment and, at worst, any proceeds of sale to which she is entitled, by the order of the court below, will be delayed,” the court ruled.

The court said the decision that justice required was to grant the application and that Brown should be allowed to file and argue his appeal.

An application for a stay of the court order was granted pending the outcome of the appeal, as the court found that there was merit in the proposed appeal.

“Despite his egregious conduct and attitude toward the court at this level and the court below, Mr Brown seems to have a good arguable case for an appeal, based on the evidence that has been placed before this court. Considering that evidence, the application for an extension of time to file an appeal, as well as a stay of execution of the judgment, should be granted,” the court ruled.

Brown was ordered to pay Nichol’s legal costs. The court ruled that “since, based on the assessment of Mr Brown’s conduct, the application is to cure his default, costs should go to Ms Nichol”.

He contended in his application that he was living in Canada when the suit was filed and was never served with the fixed-date claim form. He said he subsequently heard about the claim and retained an attorney-at-law to represent him but the attorney did not appear in court when the order was made in the Supreme Court. He said he was only aware of the order when a notice to quit was posted on the door of the apartment in September 2023.

He outlined that he and Nichol were living in the apartment but she left in 2008 and had never returned. He continued living at the apartment, paying the mortgage and other fees, until 2018 when he moved to Canada and rented out the apartment.

He is claiming sole ownership of the property as he contends that he had open, undisturbed and exclusive control of the property from 2008 to 2018 until he moved to Canada, and rented the apartment until he returned to the island in September last year.

Alleged physical abuse

Nichol, in resisting the application, agreed that she left the apartment in 2008 and had never returned. She said, however, that she was forced to leave because of Brown’s physical abuse. She said she never relinquished her interest in the property and Brown was aware of that. She disclosed that, during the intervening period, Brown had offered to purchase her interest but failed to take the required steps to get the transaction done.

Attorneys-at-law Sarah-Elizabeth Dixon and Abigail Heslop, instructed by legal firm Cardinal Law, made the application on behalf of Brown.

Nichol was represented by attorney-at-law Michelle Smith, instructed by the law firm Lewis, Smith, Williams & Co.

editorial@gleanerjm.com