In this appeal brought pursuant to s. 147 of the Registered Land Ordinance Cap 9.01, the appellant complains about three decisions of the Registrar of Lands (the Registrar), one rejecting an application for a caution against certain parcels of land, and two rejecting applications for restrictions against other parcels of land.
The appellant is a law firm belonging to Mr. Duncanson. The first respondent is the Deputy Registrar of Lands, acting as Registrar. She made the decisions that are on appeal. The Second is a nominal respondent who responds to this appeal on behalf of the first respondent. The Intervenor/Respondent is a land selling company that owns the lands regarding which applications were made by the appellant, and in respect of which the Deputy Registrar made the referenced decisions.
The matters antecedent to the instant appeal are, that on or about 22 Septen1ber 2023, the appellant applied for cautions to be placed on lands described as Parcels 40311/43, 44-50, 53-56, 61-75. The application was grounded on the fact that the appellant had filed a petition to wind up the Intervenor/Interested Party (EWD). The winding up was sought on two grounds: that it being just and equitable that EWD be liquidated s. 161(b) of the Insolvency Ordinance (JO), and also, under s. 161(a), that it was insolvent. An alternative relief sought was for an order of administration under s. 64(1) of the Insolvency Ordinance. This process, the applicant described as a 'bankruptcy petition' for which he sought a caution on afore-described parcels of land owned by EWD, on the application of s. 127(1)(c) of the Registered Land Ordinance (RLO).
On 10 November 2023, the Deputy Registrar (referred to by the appellant as Acting Registrar), replied to the appellant's email of 2 November 2023 by which he enquired about the status of the cautions he had applied for (as she recounted in her email). The Deputy Registrar, in that email reply (headed "Caution in Bankruptcy s. 127 RLO —East Wind Development Company Ltd"), explaining that she had been on leave when the appellant requested the caution over certain lands, apologised for the inaction of the Land Registry in timeously registering the cautions sought. She attributed her office's inaction to internal difficulties. Asserting further in her email that the appellant was entitled to the cautions he sought, she indicated however, that a search of the register had revealed that some of the parcels included in the application for cautions had been transferred to bona fide purchasers and had been registered. Acknowledging further, that a timely response to the appellant's application for the cautions would have affected the registration of the transfers registered on 28 September and 4 October 2024, she indicated that a caution could not placed on them retrospectively. However, she assured the appellant that there were yet nine parcels remaining in the lot, over which a caution had been registered.
On 20 November 2023, the appellant replied to the Deputy Registrar's letter of 10 November 2023, and expressed his displeasure at the failure of the Deputy Registrar to register the cautions he had applied for. He asserted, that having filed what he described as a 'bankruptcy petition' against EWD, he was entitled to cautions which had been frustrated by the inaction of the Registry.
In a letter dated 8 December 2023 under the hand of the Deputy Registrar, the appellant was informed of the rejection of his application for the caution sought over 40311/51, 52, 57, 58, 43 — East. The reason for the rejection was that the said lands were no longer registered to East Wind Development Company against which the winding up petition had been filed.
In two separate letters of 20 May 2024, the Deputy Registrar informed the appellant that his application of 20 November 2023 which sought the registration of restrictions on Parcels 40311/43, 44-50, 53-56, 61-75, and the application of 28 November 2023 by which he requested restrictions on Parcels 40311/51, 52, 57, 58 and 43, had also been rejected as the appellant had "not established any legal or equitable interest in the properties" to register restrictions. The lands are referred to hereafter as 'the subject lands'.
It is against these three decisions that the instant appeal has been brought. In summary, the appellant complains that in her rejection of his applications, the Deputy Registrar erred in the application of the law, having allegedly failed to recognise the appellant's alleged equitable interest in the land which he sought to protect by requesting the cautions and restrictions. He argues also that the Deputy Registrar failed to have regard to the actual conveyancing practice in the islands regarding cautions and restrictions, as provided in the Registered Land Ordinance (RLO), and further, that she failed in the performance of her statutory duty as she did not consider the position of the appellant in equity, when she rejected the applications for cautions and restrictions.
The respective stance of the parties raise the following issues for determination in this appeal:
1. Whether or not the decision of the Deputy Registrar that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient interest in the lands the subject of his application for restrictions was erroneous in the light of a demonstrated equitable interest therein.
2. Whether or not Registrar's decision denying the caution on the ground that EWD was no longer the owner of the land was flawed, in the light of the winding up petition which had been brought to the Registrar's attention as a 'bankruptcy petition'.
3. Whether in an appeal under s. 147 of the Registered Land Ordianance, the performance of the Deputy Registrar's functions as a public official can be called into question.
4. If paragraph 3 is correct, whether it was unreasonable, and in breach of the duty to act lawfully, provided under s. 19 of the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands Cap 1.01.
Held: That the application for an inhibition brought as part of the instant appeal is severed from the appeal CL 67/24 and be so numbered accordingly. An inhibition is granted against only the lands still owned by EWD until an application for interlocutory injunction filed in CL 150/22 is determined. The Registrar of Lands to register the inhibitions on the said lands on the said terms accordingly. Costs reserved to abide the conclusion of the application for the interlocutory injunction in CL 150/22.