Derek Faria (Appellant) v Karen Clapperton and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0016

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

DEREK LEE FARIA

Respondent(s)

KAREN AND KEVIN CLAPPERTON

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding that the respondents had a greater right to the land than the appellant?

Facts

This concerns a dispute between relatives as to who owns a plot of land. An area of land totalling 1337.6 square metres (“the land”) had been in the possession of Lydia Savary since the 1950s. The land was transferred to Zita Faria (the appellant’s mother) on Lydia Savary’s death. This was then transferred to the appellant (alongside his siblings) on Zita Faria’s death in 1993. The land was then transferred to the appellant solely by his siblings by Deed of Assent dated 18 December 2009. Before her death, Lydia Savary granted a licence to occupy one of the two houses on the land (“the chattel house”) to Irvin Clapperton (the respondents’ father) for as long as he wanted. His children, the respondents, came to live with him at the chattel house in around 1985. In around 2008, Irvin Clapperton transferred ownership of the chattel house to the first respondent, Karen Clapperton. Irvin Clapperton occupied the house until his death on 25 August 2009, and the first respondent continued to occupy the house thereafter. Her companion Lawson Lazarus also occupied the house. The appellant wrote to Mr Lazarus on 17 April 2013, asking him to vacate the house. The appellant then filed a claim against Mr Lazarus, alleging trespass and requesting Mr Lazarus vacate the house. Mr Lazarus did not file a defence. On 17 July 2013, a judgement in default was granted, finding that the appellant was entitled to the chattel house, and that the appellant was entitled to mesne profits (money paid for unlawful occupation of land). The appellant then sought to remove Mr Lazarus from the chattel house, and the chattel house was then demolished and removed from the land. The respondents then filed an amended application on 28 October 2016 for the judgement of 17 July 2013 to be set aside. They also requested that they be substituted for Mr Lazarus as the defendants in the proceedings as they were the owners/ occupiers of the chattel house. The respondents then submitted a counterclaim, arguing that they were in fact the owners of the chattel house and to the half portion of the land on which the chattel house was situated (“the parcel”). They claimed that the claimant was only the owner of half of the land, with the respondents owning the parcel. The respondents claimed that the land had originally been owned by Ann Smith, who had died in 1948. In her will, she had left one half of the land to Ms Savary and the other half, the parcel, to Eugenia Clapperton, her daughter. Eugenia Clapperton died intestate in 1959, with her estate falling to her son Richard Clapperton. Richard Clapperton then died intestate, leaving his estate to his son, Irvin Clapperton. Irvin Clapperton was the respondents’ father, who died in 2009 leaving his estate to his children. The respondents therefore claimed that the appellant had only ever had title to half of the land, and the respondents had always had title to the parcel. They therefore sought declaration that the appellants title to the land was extinguished, and damages for demolition of the chattel house. Following a hearing on 24 and 25 January 2022 at the High Court, the trial judge found that the respondents had greater title to the parcel than the appellant. The appellant’s Deed of Assent was declared invalid, meaning that he no longer had title to the parcel. The appellant was ordered to pay damages to the respondents for destruction of the chattel house and legal costs. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.