Strata Plan 126 v Daniel and Lorraine Lowe - Judgment

¶ ```html IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CIVIL DIVISION Cause No：G 0013/2018 BETWEEN： PROPRIETORS STRATA PLAN #126 PLAINTIFF AND： DANIEL LOWE FIRST DEFENDANT LORRAINE LOWE SECOND DEFENDANT Appearances： Mr. John Meghoo on behalf of the Plaintiff Defendant in Person Before： The Hon. Justice Cherryl Richards Q.C. Heard： 10th July 2019 Judgment： 2nd August 2019 HEADNOTE Civil Law - Breach of Restrictive Covenants，Implied or Express Easements，Strata Titles Registration Law. J UD GMENT ```
INTRODUCTION

¶ [1] On the 22 nd July 2015, the Defendants, Daniel Lowe and his wife Lorraine Lowe became the registered joint proprietors of Block 22E, Parcel 183 H1. This is apartment number 9, Prospect Legacy Apartments, Phase Two in George Town, Grand Cayman ("the property"). This apartment is one of a block of six apartments. There are other units sequentially numbered in another block in Phase One.

¶ [2] The origin of title on registration of the property is recorded in the Land Register as being by First Registration, Mutation no. Strata Plan 126. The Register also records that the title to the property is subject to the restrictive agreements as listed in the Bye-laws for the said Strata Plan and any amendments thereof. The apartment is therefore registered as a strata lot pursuant to the Strata Titles Registration Law (2013 Revision). This Law was originally enacted in 1973.

¶ [3] Mr. Lowe and his wife took actual possession of the property on the 12 th June 2015. On moving in, Mr. Lowe considered the outside areas of the property to be insecure, bare, unkempt and unattractive. He is an avid gardener and embarked on a series of privacy, security and beautification activities designed he says to enhance the property, make it more secure and improve its condition. These activities included, re-staining the front door of his own property, in a different color from the other five units, putting down pavers at his front door, and affixing a security camera to the outside of his apartment. Subsequently he planted various flowers by the wall to his unit and placed red and yellow brick border around the property. He also planted trees and fruit trees to create and them. He enclosed several partial areas in the apartment by using board fencing material and two doors which had been discarded by the owners of a neighboring property. He had keys made for those doors and locked Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 2 of 35
Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 3 of 35

¶ [1] Inside of this now fully enclosed area, he planted more plants and flowers. He produces before-and-after pictures of the areas and considers that they have been upgraded and enhanced. He spoke with pride of the many compliments that he has received from passers-by when they walk their dogs and questions the Godliness of people who do not like flowers.

¶ [2] The Plaintiff, Proprietors Strata Plan 126, is the Strata Corporation for the said Apartment Complex (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). It appears before the Court through its management entity, Estate Management Services represented by its managing director Lavinia Jones. The Corporation responded with concern to Mr. Lowe’s activities. It asserts that Mr. Lowe did not have the permission of the Corporation to carry out these exterior activities and that some of the work which he has done, for example with the brick borders around the plants is not up to standard. It appears that the Corporation tried initially to reach compromise positions with Mr. Lowe. The Corporation caused all the other five front doors to be re-stained to match the color used by Mr. Lowe, removed the pavers which he had put down, and gave after-the-fact permission to him to install security cameras. The Corporation tried to reach an agreement with him to transfer to the Strata the management of the trees and plants which were planted on Common Property without permission. The tipping point for the Corporation is not only that the enclosure completed by Mr. Lowe extends beyond his own patio and into the Common Property of the Strata but that within that particular area of the property is a tent plant for the entire complex. In order to access the septic tank, it must either obtain a key from Mr. Lowe or request of him in advance to leave it open for inspection or for access by workmen.
```html 1 5. Following a letter to Mr. Lowe and his wife on the 20th October 2015 from the 2 Corporation's Attorneys, an annual general meeting on the 19th March 2016 at which 3 Mr. Lowe was present and a further letter to the Lowes on the 22nd February 2017, Mr. 4 Lowe continued to refuse to remove the enclosure. The septic plant remains enclosed to 5 this day. 6 On the 18th January 2018 the Corporation filed an Originating Summons which seeks 7 the following: 10 i. An Order for demolition of the enclosure and the removal of other plants and articles 11 unlawfully constructed, placed or planted on the Common Property of the Strata; 12 ii. An Order prohibiting construction, placing or landscaping of the Common Property 13 without the express written consent of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee; and 14 iii. Costs on an indemnity basis against the Defendants. 16 7. The Defendants acknowledged service on the 8th February 2018, indicating an intention 17 to defend. Mr. Lowe filed a Defence in person on the 5th March 2018 in which he asserts 18 primarily that the construction of the fence (the enclosure) was authorised by the 19 managing director, Ms. Jones but that because she was not contacted when it was 20 constructed, she became angry and said that it should be taken down. He further asserts 21 inter alia the following: 22 i) When he bought the property, two sides of the fence had already been 23 erected 24 i) He w'Plaintiff bd 2 25 relative to the property and his intention to beautify it. He says, “I did not ```
```html 1 hear from her again for several weeks so I went ahead and created border(s) 2 around the apt.” This was just temporary. 3 iii) The cameras were installed as a result of thieves coming on to the property 4 and distributing stolen goods. 5 iv) On the 17th July, 2015, he attended a meeting with some owners, at 6 apartment 10. The owners of apartments 10 and 13 were present. Those 7 present voted in favour of the flower beds and trees that he planted. 8 v) Since the invasion of the thief he erected the other side of the fence. 9 vi) The Plaintiff told him to remove the fence “to avoid blocking out the 10 treatment plant which would make the area look bad and the fence was 11 already built and cost him to install now to cut it off would cost him again 12 and this is without regard to his financial position and easement”. He also 13 says: 14 “During that meeting all owners came to look at the work done and 15 asked that I cut off the fence to put it by the brick area. I do not 16 agree and refuse to take it down so I think it made the Plaintiff [the 17 Plaintiff’s representative] mad and she started a vendetta against 18 me.” The Plaintiff spoke to me telling me where to put the fence but 19 to call her when I was doing it, I didn’t call her that is why she 20 wants the fence torn down to please herself and out of spite.” 21 vii) He has offered to give the managing director a key and to leave the door 22 whenever a. 23 opercess is needed 24 He v hee the Shen 25 ix) The fence is needed for privacy and security. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 5 of 35 ```
```html 1 8. He ends by asking that the Court stay the Plaintiffs suggested order and allow matters 2 to remain as is. He says that the septic plant was in a deplorable state when he moved in, 3 and that having improved the state of it, he should be allowed some easement. 4 THE HEARING 5 9. The matter came on for hearing on the 10th July 2019. Mrs. Lowe did not attend. Mr. 6 Lowe advised the Court and Counsel that his wife did not do any of the work, he is the 7 one who did everything and that his wife did not wish to have the embarrassment of 8 attending Court. The Plaintiffs Attorney indicated that he had no objection to 9 proceeding in her absence. The matter therefore proceeded in the absence of the Second 10 Defendant. 11 12. At the start of the hearing Mr. Lowe was given permission to file his Affidavit in the 13 matter which he had not previously done. There was no objection to this as his Affidavit 14 is in the same terms as his Defence which was filed on the 5th March 2018. He produced 15 an unsigned Affidavit later in the day prior to giving evidence. He swore to the truth of 16 its contents in the witness box and undertook to swear and file same the following day, 17 which he did. 18 ISSUE 19 11. The primary issue between the parties is one of fact as to whether or not Mr. Lowe 20 received permission to fully enclose the area to the rear of his apartment and to plant 21 trees in the Comm Complex. 22 and flowers ion Area of 23 the 24 not have such permission. 25 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 6 of 35 ```
THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

¶ [13] The Strata Titles Registration Law provides in section 3 that the proprietor of land upon which a building is to be constructed may apply to the Registrar for a horizontal or vertical subdivision to be known as strata lots in accordance with a plan which is to be known as a strata plan. Where such a plan is registered, strata lots under the plan may be devolved and be dealt with in the same manner as land which falls under the Registered Land Law.

¶ [14] On the 9th October 2012 the Law was amended to include in s.3 the following: **(2A) Upon registration of a strata plan, complete strata plan, phase strata plan and an amended strata plan:** (a) the land described in such plan is divided into strata lots and common property, if any, in accordance with the plan; and (b) the proprietor of each strata lot is entitled to all the rights and obligations of a proprietor including the right to vote as a member of the corporation established upon registration of the plan in accordance with section 5."

¶ [15] By s.5 (1) of the Law, upon registration of a strata plan, the proprietors of all strata lots contained in such plan, become a body corporate ('corporation') under the name, the Proprietors, Strata Plan followed by an assigned number. By s.5(2), every such corporation shall have perpetual succession, a common seal and be capable of suing and being sued in its name. The corporation or These include and common property, if any, as set out in subsection (b) to keep the property in a state of good repair and to comply with notices by public or local authorities requiring repairs or work done in respect of the property. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 7 of 35
```html respect of the parcel. A corporation may enter any strata lot and effect repairs or carry out work in accordance with its duties. 17. Part IV of the Law deals with easements in favour of and against any proprietor of a strata lot. The easements against are set out in s.12(b): “b) as against the proprietor thereof and to which it shall be subject- (i) an easement for the subjacent and lateral support of the common property and of every other strata lot capable of enjoying support from such strata lot； and (ii) easements for the passage or provision of water, sewerage, drainage, gas, electricity, garbage, artificially heated or cooled air and other services (including telephone, radio and television services) through or by means of any pipes, wires, cables or ducts for the time being existing within such strata lot, as appurtenant to the common property and to every other strata lot capable of enjoying such easements.” 18. By s.22, the proprietors may by super majority direct the corporation to execute on their behalf a grant of an easement or a restrictive agreement burdening the parcel or by special resolution direct the acceptance of a grant of the same which benefits the parcel. 19. Common property is defined in the law as meaning, in relation to any strata plan, so much of the land to which such plan relates as is for the time being not included in any strata lot contained in such plan. 20. With ownership of the strata plan, s.13 provides as follows: respect to common property: 29 “13.(1) respective strata lots. (2) The Registrar shall, in making out a land certificate for any strata lot, certify therein the proprietor's share in the common property. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 8 of 35 ```
```markdown (3) Save as is provided in this Law, no share in the common property shall be disposed of except as appurtenant to a strata lot and any assurance of a strata lot shall operate to assure the share of the disposing party in the common property without express reference thereto."

¶ [21] The proprietors may direct the corporation to transfer or lease the common property by way of a duly passed super-majority resolution (section 14).

¶ [22] By s.21, the control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the strata lots and common property shall be regulated by bye-laws. These shall include mandatory bye-laws set out in Schedule 1 to the Law and bye-laws from the corporation itself. Bye-laws which are for the time being in force bind every corporation and the proprietors thereof. THE BYE-LAWS

¶ [23] The mandatory bye-laws in Schedule 1 to the Law include the following duties of a proprietor: 1 (d) use and enjoy the common property in such a manner as not unreasonably to interfere with the use and enjoyment thereof by other proprietors or their families or visitors; (e) not to use his strata lot or permit it to be used in such manner or for such purpose as shall cause a nuisance or hazard to the occupier of any other strata lot (whether a proprietor or not) or any member of the household or any guest of such occupier;

¶ [24] The corporation has the power to do all things reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the bye-laws and, in the contravention of the common property and the following duties: ```
```html 1 2 (a) control, manage and administer the common property for the 3 benefit of all proprietors; 4 (b) keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly 5 maintain the fixtures and fittings (including elevators) used in 6 connection with the common property; 7 (c) where practicable, establish and maintain suitable lawns and 8 gardens on the common property;” 9 25. By paragraph 14 of the bye-laws, the powers and duties of the corporation are exercised 10 and performed by an executive committee subject to any restriction imposed or direction 11 given at a general meeting. This committee is to consist of not less than three nor more 12 than nine proprietors as elected at a general meeting. 13 14 26. The committee may employ for and on behalf of the corporation such agents as it thinks 15 fit in connection with the control, management and administration of the common 16 property and to exercise and perform the duties of the corporation (paragraph 21). 17 18 27. Additionally there are bye-laws registered with Strata Plan 126 which are specific to 19 Prospect Legacy Phase Two and it's Strata Corporation. A number of these provisions 20 are important to a determination of this matter. 21 22 28. “Common Property” is defined therein to mean as much of the land to which the plan 23 relates which is for the time being not included in any strata lot contained in the plan and 24 any additions thereto which may take place from time to time. The Executive Committee 25 consists of not less than five nor more than eight proprietors. The quorum for general 26 meetings is one registered 27 on or by pro 28 start of the meeting, a quorum is not present, the persons present who are entitled to vote 29 shall constitute a quorum. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 10 of 35 ```
```html 1 29. The Corporation shall control, manage and administer the Common Property for the 2 benefit of all proprietors and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly 3 maintain the fixtures and fittings used in connection with the Common Property. 4 Additionally the Corporation shall where practicable establish and maintain suitable 5 lawns and gardens on the Common Property. 6 7 30. The keeping of the Common Property and fixtures and fittings is subject to the 8 contribution and payment by the proprietors and includes to maintain all its parts, 9 gardens, shrubberies and entrance drives with the gardens properly planted with shrubs 10 and flowers in due season and free from weeds, clean and tidy and free form all 11 obstruction. 12 13 31. There is an express provision that nothing contained therein shall prejudice the 14 Corporation’s right to recover from a proprietor the amount or value of any loss or 15 damage suffered by or caused to the Corporation or the Common Property by the 16 negligence or wrongful act or default of the proprietor of any Strata Lot or such other 17 person. (Paragraph 34(8)). 18 19 32. By paragraph 35(6) the Corporation may do all things reasonably necessary for the 20 enforcement of the bye-laws and the control, management and administration of the 21 Common Property. 22 24 following， to oh 33 of tanc 23 The of a propriet the f it in paraghe l include 1 obligations or are set graph bye-laws 25 “(5) use and enjoy the Common Property in such manner so as not to 26 unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment thereof by other 27 proprietors or their families or visitors; Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 11 of 35 ```
```markdown (11) not make any alterations or additions in or to the Strata Lot without the approval in writing of the Corporation to the plans and specifications thereof and make such alterations only in accordance with such plans and specification when approved; (14) permit the Corporation and the proprietors of other Strata Lots to have access to and enter upon the Strata Lot as often as may be reasonably necessary for them to do so in the fulfilment of their obligations relating to the Common Property and to other Strata Lots; (17) comply with and observe any reasonable regulations which the Executive Committee may from time to time make to govern the use of the Strata Lots and the Common Property, which regulations may be restrictive of acts done on the Strata Lot or on the Common Property which is in the opinion of the Executive Committee are or likely to be detrimental to the character or amenities of the Apartments; (21) not, without the previous consent of the Executive Committee cause or permit anything to be placed on the outside walls of the Strata Lot and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, not without such consent to cause or permit any sign, ………to be affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls or roof or any part of the Strata Lot; (30) not alter or construct in or remove from the Common Property anything except with the written consent of the Executive Committee.” THE EVIDENCE Evidence of Lavinia Jones

¶ [34] The Plaintiff’s Summons is supported by the Affidavit of Ms. Lavinia Jones dated 3rd November 2017. She is authorised by the Plaintiff to make the application on its behalf.

¶ [35] Ms. Jones states that in or around 2015, the Defendants constructed or caused to be constructed a fence which encloses the septic tank on the Complex. This fence with doors is entirely outside the aesthetic development and encloses a part of the Common Property as defined in the bye-laws. She asserts that this is in breach of the bye-laws secti (11), (14), and has also caused the breaches under secti (5), (21) and (23). Plaintiff to risk Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 12 of 35 ```
```html 1 36. She states further that in 2017 the Defendants placed various sizes of cement blocks and 2 brick pavers of various colors around various plants without permission. The Strata has 3 asked Mr. Lowe to remove the fence by letters from its Attorneys. Mr. Lowe has replied 4 refusing to do so. 5 37. She gave oral evidence that the septic tank which is an area beyond Mr. Lowe’s patio is 6 the main concern. The Corporation has to service it twice a year and has had problems 7 in the past for the Water Authority to access it. The Water Authority sought access to 8 the septic system for testing purposes, and she was not able to grant such access. 10 11 38. She said that it was true that Mr. Lowe had asked for permission to enclose the area but 12 he did not obtain it. Her response to him when he handed in the letter seeking permission 13 was that the Strata would have to call an extraordinary meeting. She said that it was 14 absolutely false that she had said in front of two proprietors that she knew and had read 15 up about him. 16 17 39. At a later meeting in March 2016 they had tried to have a peaceful resolution. The 18 decision made by the Strata was that some of the landscaping may remain provided that 19 Mr. Lowe agrees that it is Strata property and that the Strata has the right to bring the 20 work up to standard. They had also agreed that his security cameras could remain and 21 that the flower beds could remain - provided ownership was handed over to the Strata. 22 The trees planted on the Common Property, including a plum tree and one coconut tree 23 could remain, provided they are handed over to the Strata and the Strata has the right to 24 remov is hes. 26 40. The Proprietors had looked at the treatment plant during the meeting and said that the 27 fencing should be removed immediately and Mr. Lowe refused to do this. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 13 of 35 ```
```html 1 41. She gave evidence that the Strata Plan allows everyone to have a patio which patio can 2 be enclosed. Everyone else has enclosed property that they lawfully own, Mr. Lowe has 3 enclosed the septic tank for the Complex which is on a strip of land which is Common 4 Property. No one else has done that. 5 6 42. The septic tank had not previously been enclosed. There had been a border between Mr. 7 Lowe’s property and the property of a neighbor, Gary and there was a short side at the 8 end of the property, which Mr. Lowe has extended. That area did not have a side wall at 9 the time. The entire area was open when Mr. Lowe took possession. Prior to then, at no 10 time had she had to ask permission from an owner in order to access the tank. Mr. Lowe 11 had to enclose two sides in order to enclose the septic tank. 12 13 43. She said that no one was disputing Mr. Lowe’s reasons for privacy and security. They 14 respect whatever reasons he has but the concern is that he has enclosed Common 15 Property. 16 17 44. Mr. Lowe suggested to her that she had given him permission to move a barbecue grill 18 because it is not Common Property. She agreed that he had asked about the grill which 19 was outside his apartment. The grill had been there a long time ago before he came. She 20 gave him permission to move it. She did not give him permission to move the grill so 21 that he could build the fence. Neither did she tell him that he could build the fence in 22 line with the utility room. 23 24 45. She g him permis the sewage n 25 26 27 46. At this point Mr. Lowe suggested to her that: Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 14 of 35 ```
```html 1 “I said to you if I put it behind here it would not look good, I said to you if it is put 2 in line with the utility room, it would be better, uniformity.” 3 Ms. Jones said that the area he is referring to aligns with his patio. She told him that he 4 has permission to enclose the patio. Instead he has gone beyond that and has enclosed 5 Common Property. 6 47. She said that there are five proprietors who do not like what Mr. Lowe has done. They 7 do not have any problem with plants provided that he agrees that the Strata takes them 8 over. They will have a meeting and will do their best to keep the banana trees. Some of 9 the trees are beautiful. They will improve upon what he has done. He failed to get 10 permission from the Strata to do it. 11 12 48. She also gave evidence that the Executive Committee should have not less than five 13 persons and not more than eight. The decision to take Mr. Lowe to Court was voted for 14 at the annual general meeting. There were four owners present at the meeting, Gary, 15 Lana, David Mitchell and Mr. Lowe was present as well. One party was in arrears, 16 Cedric, so he would have had no voting rights. The decision was thus made by the 17 majority and was also supported by a written resolutions for the management firm to 18 institute proceedings against Mr. Lowe. 19 The Evidence of Mr. Lowe 20 49. There is no issue as to whether or not the property fully enclosed by Mr. Lowe is 21 Comy. In cross eaid that ini 22 but bts that it is. 23 mon Propertkamination ht know that Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 15 of 35

¶ [50] He said that he did not build anything, he just added to what was there. He accepted that he does not have the right to add to fixtures on Common Property.

¶ [51] In his Affidavit and oral evidence, he put forward various explanations for erecting the enclosure. These include that it was needed for privacy and security. He said that following the sighting of a thief outside, the fence needed to be completed for security reasons. His wife is at home mostly by herself and he needs to protect his property and the contents.

¶ [52] He also said that before moving in, the real estate agent had shown him the back line and told them that the property was theirs.

¶ [53] He complained that on moving in there was nobody to ask any questions, that he did not have a copy of the bye-laws. He had requested them from Ms. Jones at his first meeting with her on the 29th June 2015 as well as the contact details for other owners. He said that Ms. Jones had refused to provide them. He said that he was not aware that he could obtain a copy of the bye-laws from the Land Registry.

¶ [54] In response to his cross examination on this aspect, Ms. Jones explained that at closing of the sale of a property, the management company must present bye-laws and minutes of the annual general meetings. That is the procedure for every new owner. This is required by law. The management company would have done the same for Mr. Lowe’s closing. However the company is not retained to visit every new owner and hold conversations with new owners. The management company does this through the provision of minutes of meetings and bye-laws. These are provided to the attorneys acting on the sale and transfer of the property.

¶ [55] Mr. Lowe alleged that on their first meeting Ms. Jones said to him that she had read up about him and that she must have a grudge or vendetta against him. He referred to his nationality as a Jamaican and to the nationality of the other proprietors as being a possible reason why those persons might also have a vendetta against him. Ms. Jones in response to these suggestions denied any such grudge or vendetta. She said that she met him for the first time in June 2015.

¶ [56] Mr. Lowe stated that he is a former manager of a strata complex at Randyke Gardens in George Town which was well run so that he is aware of how a strata operates.

¶ [57] His primary assertion is that he requested permission to erect the fence enclosure and that he was given verbal permission, once by the Plaintiff in the person of Ms. Jones and secondly at a meeting of the Proprietors in March 2016. He says that essentially it is the word of Ms. Jones against his because neither party called any additional witnesses.

¶ [58] In his Affidavit and oral evidence, Mr. Lowe stated that he had given the Plaintiff a letter dated 29th June 2015.

¶ [59] In my assessment of this matter and of the credibility of each party, the letter of 29th June 2015 is important. It is headed “Re Moving In and Problems.” This is what it says: "We would like to inform the Strata of our moving in on the 13th June 2015 officially and is in a position now to discuss a way forward. We would like permission to erect a continuation of rear fence around the property like the rest of the buildings and at the front step with brick." ``` **Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019** **Page 17 of 35** ```
```html 1 60. From this letter it is clear to me that Mr. Lowe knew that he required permission to 2 enclose the rear of the property and to plant a flower garden. 3 4 61. What then was the response to his request? 5 6 62. Ms. Jones said that having been handed the letter, she needed to call a general meeting 7 in order for a response to be obtained from the other proprietors and that there is a 8 specific notice period of 21 days in the bye-laws. 9 10 63. In his defence and in his Affidavit, Mr. Lowe said that he did not hear back from her 11 for a period of several weeks so he went ahead and created a border around his apartment. 12 13 64. In his oral evidence before the Court he said that she did not get back to them. He 14 explained that he had family members who were coming to visit from overseas, some of 15 whom had helped him to purchase the property. Six of them came down to look at the 16 property. He said that he had tried to make the place attractive when they came. He was 17 so excited to get the place so he quickly erected the side flower bed and started planting 18 up." 19 20 65. As to the fence he was adamant that two sides were already there when he moved in 21 having been left there by the previous owner and that he only put up one side. Ultimately 22 Ms. Jones did not disagree with this although she said it was part of one side and another 23 side. Both agree that the fence was already partially there. Mr. Lowe agrees that his 24 acticthe area com 26 llv in his e ·Lowe that lverbal 25 ons enclosed ipletely. 66. Finavidence. Mr it as he ive authorisation in the presence of two or three witnesses it must be law” and that it is not 27 ```
```html 1 fair. He says that he wants to protect his place. He said that he wants a compromise. Ms. 2 Jones could take a key from him, the treatment plant is not “troubling anybody” and 3 could stay as is. It does not cost anything to allow it to remain. They could get a key or 4 he could remove the doors and leave it open so that they could have access. If the place 5 is exposed it would be a security issue. 6 67. He also said that what he has done was not done maliciously to hurt anyone. He bought 8 the place and cannot enjoy it. He says that it is a plot against him and asks does he not 9 get an easement? The other option which he suggests is that the Strata charges him 10 money to rent the treatment plant. He says that all he has done is to help to improve the 11 value of the Strata. He said that when he was written to in 2017, he did not demolish the 12 fence because he thinks that he has an easement and he does not think it is right for him 13 to demolish it. 14 15 68. He said that he has verbal permission from the owners who were present at the meeting 16 in March 2016 but that they are the persons who are bringing the case against him so 17 how could he get statements from them. He believes that in fairness to him the Strata 18 could have settled the matter by charging him for the piece of land which he utilised. 19 20 69. Finally he said that the treatment plant was in a deplorable condition and the two palm 21 trees in that area were disturbing him, so he believes in fairness the Corporation could 22 have given it to him. He said that that they chose to put it behind his apartment rather 23 than in the common area and no one else has to hear the scent all day long. 24 25 26 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 19 of 35 ```
THE SUBMISSIONS

¶ [70] In closing submissions Mr. Lowe asked for the Court's leniency and pleaded that the ackee and plum trees should stay, he has already reaped a crop of ackees and the ackee tree is now bearing fruit. This along with the breadfruit tree is for survival. He said that the coconut tree can go because he can always get coconuts from the nearby church yard. He said that he had tried to utilize the little space that he had and he did not know that it would cause such a problem.

¶ [71] Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that there is no scope for projects in the common areas of the Strata and that proprietors are confined in terms of individual management and responsibility of their own respective lots by the provisions of the byelaws. ## ASSESSMENT

¶ [72] On Mr. Lowe's account, the catalyst for his fencing activity was the viewing of a recording made by his security camera which showed a man sitting on the boards outside the apartment apparently distributing money. He said that, he said to himself that he had to fix up the place quickly. In doing the enclosure he felt that if he left out the treatment plant "it would not look so good." He spoke of a conversation with Ms. Jones who he said was on the property at the time in which she told him in the presence of his wife that he could complete the enclosure. Ms. Jones denies this conversation. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 20 of 35

¶ [1] "She said I must pull it in front of me in line with my patio but it would cut off the bricks that the gentlemen fix on his place.

¶ [2] I said why not allow me to put it in line with the utility room. She said for a peaceful life she would make it stay like that.

¶ [3] But she still insist that I must cut off the treatment plant. I said how that it is going to look.

¶ [4] It would still encourage thief. Because he can jump the fence and come into my yard."

¶ [74] His evidence suggested that there was a disagreement as to where he was to put the fence and that he was the one insisting that he needed to put it in a particular place because it would not look good otherwise.

¶ [75] When he says that he received no response to his letter of 29th June 2015, it is my view that this cannot be a truthful account. Ms. Jones' evidence is that the extraordinary meeting at which his letter was discussed was held on the 18th July 2015 and he was present. Two other owners were present and she held proxies for two others. She produced minutes which purport to bear the signatures of other owners. The minutes record a decision as to re-staining the doors and that Mr. Lowe was to submit details of the stain which he used. They also record violations of bye-laws by the installation of cameras and of plants by Mr. Lowe and state that these are to be removed from the Common Property. Further that the pavers at his front door would be inspected. ``` Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 21 of 35 ```
```html 1 “Nonetheless the strata cannot approve Daniels’ request to enclose the septic tank 2 within his patio area. This fixture is servicing all Strata Lots and is deemed Common 3 Property. For maintenance purposes it is vital Strata has full access to the septic at 4 all times. Furthermore in the event of an emergency access must be immediate as 5 any hindrance would be detrimental to all Strata Lots.” 6 77. In a letter dated 20th July 2015 which is attached to his Defence and about which he 8 spoke in his evidence, Mr. Lowe admitted attending that meeting of the 18th July 2015. 9 In his oral evidence he admitted writing that letter and said that he had delivered it to all 10 the owners. He said therein: 11 12 “On Saturday the 17th July 2015 at 12pm I attended a meeting at the property 13 managers office with 2 other owners and after deliberating the manager started to 14 bash my project, critique it and try to make it look to the owners present no 10 and 15 14 that the bricks I installed the color will devalue the property as they were not 16 done professionally.” 17 18 78. He encouraged the owners in the letter that we are owners and have easements and then 19 he said: 20 21 “Egress to and from the property, and rear, as I said rear, one imagine(s) owners 22 whom (sic)spend so much to erect their back easement to take it down and if done 23 will be temporary, some owners are struggling now to see another cost to take it 24 down, what jn'thepisupu stay there 25 what's the ling 26 nt of spoil 27 down, what jn'thepisupu stay there 28 ryu has 29 o w 30 to planning like her s 31 owner's Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 22 of 35 ```
```html 1 79. He then referred in the letter to the unsightly septic tank at the back and suggested that 2 if the trees are to be removed, they could be placed out in the common areas next to the 3 other side or strategically around the property. 4 5 80. This is his evidence as to how the fence came to be enclosed: 6 “I have pictures of man sitting on the boards distributing money that he stole 7 I look into the man’s bag, bag was there on the board. We have the police report 8 and they came and took the bag and took it to the station. 9 So I said boy, I am got to fix up this place here quickly. 10 I said if I leave out the treatment plant would not look so good 11 Phase I was throwing out doors and I use those two doors that you see. 12 I paint up the place. Created two keys. 13 When they complain I ask if I could give her a key so she could have access to the 14 place and they refuse. 15 Whenever they want to do things, she send me an email and I must leave place open, 16 I check on it myself and they come and draw the stuff. 17 I am only saying that on the 20th March where in the meeting, myself, Gary, Lana 18 and herself at his apt next door to me, they verbally authorise me planting the plants 19 and leaving the camera with a view of compromising, they said I still have to cut off 20 the treatment plant. 21 Because I refused to cut off the treatment plant, they never gave me anything in 22 writing.” 23 25 Ms. Jones who I a creditbl wMs. Jones. evi accept the 24 81. Overhe version o e outlined by a so not on 25 Ms. found to be N itness I div idence of 26 rall I prefer if events nd honestid, no thly based on my impression of her as she gave her evidence but more significantly because her Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 23 of 35 ```
```html 1 evidence was in my view supported in material particulars by the evidence of Mr. Lowe 2 himself. The evidence in support of Ms. Jones’s version of events overwhelmingly 3 comes from Mr. Lowe’s own evidence. 4 82. I prefer the evidence of Ms. Jones that he was refused permission at this meeting of the 5 18th July 2015. Firstly she produces the minutes which support her account. These 6 minutes were not initially produced as part of the documents in the case but at the end 7 of her evidence in answer to the question, as to whether he was given a response to his 8 29th June 2015 letter. 9 10 11 83. Secondly any concern as to the possible manufacturing of these minutes was dispelled. 12 Mr. Lowe asserts that he was present at the meeting and the tenor of his own letter of the 13 20th July 2015, makes it very clear that he met with a negative response at that meeting 14 and was seeking the support of the owners against the management. He offered himself 15 in the closing paragraph of that letter as “new blood” and as having ideas for the Strata. 16 Indeed his letter of 20th July 2015 is inconsistent with receiving the permission which he 17 says he received. 18 19 84. As to the second occasion on which he says he received permission, this was at the 20 meeting on the 19th March 2016. On his own account in oral evidence, he said that they 21 gave him permission to keep the plants but took it back when he refused to “cut off the 22 treatment plant.” He also says that because he refused to do so that they did not give 23 him n writing. 24 25 85. This very much supports Ms. Jones’ account that the Strata was willing to compromise 26 on the plants and presented him with the option that the Strata would take over and Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 24 of 35 ```
```html 1 manage the plants and flowers but required him to remove the fence enclosing the septic 2 treatment plant. She also produced the minutes for this meeting as well. 3 Moreover Mr. Lowe accepts in his Affidavit and oral evidence that he had not received 4 a response prior to the arrival of his visiting relatives and because of the imminence of 5 their visit proceeded to beautify the place. As to the oral permission which he says he 6 received in the course of a discussion about moving the barbecue grill which discussion 7 Ms. Jones says related only to the enclosing of his patio area, on his own account, he 8 says that he was the one insisting to her that placing the fence along the line that she was 9 indicating “would not look good”. 10 It appears to me that he went ahead and placed the fence where he thought it should be 11 placed. How he could have thought that the septic tank which serves all six units could 12 be anything other than Common Property and that it should be completely enclosed by 13 him is surprising. To make matters worse, he proceeded to attach doors to the fencing 14 and to lock those doors. The photographs which he produced show red bricks which 15 make up his patio area, an area beyond that with the treatment plant and a further strip 16 of land all of which he has enclosed. 17 That he appreciates the import of his actions is plain from his suggested compromise 18 solutions including that the Strata could rent him the area or grant him an easement. 19 I do not accept his evidence when he says that he received permission. His own account 20 is in n and how an 21 and the nature 22 which he says he 23 received. 24 herem 25 herission 26 herission Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 25 of 35 ```
```html 1 90. Mr. Lowe alleges that Ms. Jones and other proprietors have a vendetta against him and 2 that the refusal of the Strata to grant him written permission flows from this. 3 4 91. He says that except for one proprietor who recently purchased property from Mr. 5 Mitchell, none of the other proprietors speak to him even though they used to do so. 6 7 92. Having listened to and observed Ms. Jones, his allegation of a vendetta is one I reject. I 8 believe her evidence that she has nothing personal against him and that she did not claim 9 to have read up about him or to have said that she “earns the big bucks to make the 10 decisions”. I have not seen any evidence to support such an allegation. Ms. Jones states 11 that the other owners are upset about what Mr. Lowe has done on the property. This 12 action has been brought because the proprietors (by a majority) are not in favour of his 13 actions. 14 15 93. The issues which they raise are reasonable ones and they appear to have a legitimate 16 concern that the Strata’s access to Common Property is restricted in the way it has 17 I am satisfied that the response to his actions is not because of a personal vendetta or grudge 18 or malice against him but because there is good reason for concern. 19 20 94. He raised other issues which are not central to the case. For example he complained that 21 the Strata refused to extend the parking lot, and about having to sell his very large truck 22 which was too big for that parking lot. He also said that his strata fees are not current 23 because he has had some difficulties. None of this leads me to conclude that there is 24 somagainst him. 25 26 27 28 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 26 of 35 ```
LEGAL ISSUES

¶ [95] There is no suggestion that the bye-laws of the Corporation are ultra vires or inconsistent with any legal provisions.

¶ [96] An examination of the bye-laws which are material to this application as to the use and management of Common Property shows that for the most part these are replicated in the mandatory bye-laws in Schedule 1 to the Law.

¶ [97] The restrictive agreements as listed in the bye-laws were properly registered in the encumbrances section of the Land Register as is required by section 93 of the Registered Land Law (2004 Revision). 1 The Register records the registration of them on the 12 th January 1990 as Entry no. 3. Section 93 provides as follows ``` (1) Where an instrument, other than a lease or charge, contains an agreement (hereinafter referred to as a restrictive agreement) by one proprietor restricting the building on or the user or other enjoyment of his land for the benefit of the proprietor of other land, and is presented to the Registrar, the Registrar shall note the restrictive agreement in the incumbrances section of the register of the land or lease burdened by the restrictive agreement, either by entering particulars of the agreement or by referring to the instrument containing the agreement, and shall file the instrument. (2) Unless it is noted in the register a restrictive agreement is not binding on the proprietor of the land or lease burdened by it or on anybody acquiring the land or lease. (3) The note of a restrictive agreement in the register does not give the restrictive agreement any greater force or validity that it would have had if it had not been registrable under this Law and had not been noted. (4) Insofar as the restrictive agreement is capable of taking effect, not only the proprietors themselves but also their respective successors in title shall be led to the bent to the burdenment otheren of it respeentientefit and subctively, unle. ``` 1 The 2004 Revision was in force at the time of purchase of the property. Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 27 of 35
```html 1 98. The fact of the proper registration of the bye-laws means that they are binding on all the 2 Proprietors of Strata Plan 126 and thus on Mr. Lowe.2 3 4 99. The single legal issue raised by Mr. Lowe is that he has an easement because he is an 5 owner. Firstly, the bye-laws, clearly set out his rights as an owner with respect to 6 the common areas of the property. Nothing in these bye-laws confers on or grants to him the 7 right to acquire sole use of Common Property. 8 9 100. Easements are defined in the Registered Land Law (2018 Revision) as meaning a right 10 attached to a parcel of land which allows the proprietor of the parcel. either to use the 11 land of another in a particular manner or to restrict its use to a particular extent, but does 12 not include a profit which is dealt with separately. 13 14 101. Section 92 of that Law provides that the proprietor of land or a lease may, by an 15 instrument in the prescribed form, grant an easement over his land or the land comprised 16 in his lease, to the proprietor or lessee of other land for the benefit of that other land. 17 Additionally any proprietor transferring or leasing land or a lease may in the transfer or 18 lease grant an easement, for the benefit of the land transferred or leased, over land 19 retained by him, or reserve an easement for the benefit of land retained by him. These 20 provisions are the same as in the earlier versions of the Law. 21 22 102. There is no evidence in this case of an express grant of any easement to Mr. Lowe or of 23 any such easement which was devolved to him on transfer of the Land which would allow 24 him to act in the zone. 2 Forth v. Strata Plan No. 436 2015 (1) CILR 436 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 28 of 35 ```
```html 103. With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. 104. In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: i. The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; ii. That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; iii. The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and iv. The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. 105. It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a ``` ```latex \begin{enumerate} \item With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. \item In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: \begin{enumerate} \item The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; \item That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; \item The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and \item The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. \end{enumerate} \item It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a \end{enumerate} ``` ```latex \footnote{[1965] 1 Q.B. 173} \footnote{[1879] 12 Ch. D.31} ``` ```html 103. With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. 104. In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: i. The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; ii. That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; iii. The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and iv. The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. 105. It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a ``` ```latex \begin{enumerate} \item With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. \item In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: \begin{enumerate} \item The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; \item That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; \item The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and \item The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. \end{enumerate} \item It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a \end{enumerate} ``` ```latex \footnote{[1965] 1 Q.B. 173} \footnote{[1879] 12 Ch. D.31} ``` ```html 103. With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. 104. In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: i. The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; ii. That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; iii. The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and iv. The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. 105. It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a ``` ```latex \begin{enumerate} \item With respect to any grant of an easement by implication, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that an easement of necessity might arise. This would most commonly arise where, on the transfer of land, but for the easement which is sought, a proprietor would be unable to access his property. Secondly where there might be an implied easement to give effect to the intended use of a property. One example is in the case of Wong v. Beaumont Property Trust Ltd where the tenant was held to have an easement of necessity. I have also considered the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows. In respect of the latter consideration there is no evidence that any easement exists which was continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Mr. Lowe’s property or that one had been previously granted. \item In Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property 8th edition at paragraph 27-0004 it states that there are four requirements before there can be an easement. These are: \begin{enumerate} \item The existence of a dominant and servant tenement; \item That the easement must confer a benefit or accommodate the dominant tenement. Under this heading the servant tenement should be close enough to the dominant tenement in order to be able to confer a practical benefit to it; \item The two tenements must be owned and occupied by different persons; and \item The easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant. \end{enumerate} \item It is in respect of the fourth requirement that there may be the most difficulty for Mr. Lowe seeking is n part of the common area rightrea enclosed s that an ement mu e. What he isot a right to s but an excl useusive to use the a . The gerle i not be a \end{enumerate} ``` ```latex \footnote{[1965] 1 Q.B. 173} \footnote{[1879] 12 Ch. D.31} ```
```html 1 right which is too extensive. An easement as distinct from a licence would not ordinarily 2 provide for a right to occupy land (See the case of Att. Gen of Southern Nigeria v. John 3 Holt & Co. (Liverpool) Ltd.5) 4 106. In Reilly v. Booth6, Lopes L.J. stated: 6 “The exclusive or unrestricted use of a piece of land, I take it, beyond all question 7 passes the property or ownership in that land, and there is no easement known to 8 law which gives exclusive and unrestricted use of a piece of land. It is not an 9 easement in such a case, it is property that passes.” 10 107. In Copeland v. Greenhalf7, the defendant claimed the right of an easement to place 11 and 12 leave vehicles on a strip of land belonging to the plaintiff. He claimed that he and his 13 father before him had been using the land for some 50 years to store vehicles for his 14 wheelwright business. The Court held that the right exercised and claimed was too 15 extensive to amount to an easement in law, as it amounted practically to a claim for the 16 whole of the beneficial use of the strip of land. Upjohn J. stated: 17 “The occupier of a dominant tenement over a servient tenement. This claim (to 18 which no closely related authority has been referred to me) really amounts to a claim 19 to a joint user of the land by the defendant. Practically, the defendant is claiming 20 the whole beneficial user of the strip of land on the south-east side of the track there; 21 he can leave as many or as few lorries there as he likes for as long as he likes; he 22 may enter on it by himself, his servants and agents to do repair work thereon. In my 23 judgment, that is not a claim which can be established as an easement. It is virtually 24 a claim to possession of the servient tenement, if necessary to the exclusion of the 25 owner; or, at any rate, to a joint user, and no authority has been cited to me which 26 would justify the conclusion that a right of this wide and undefined nature can be 27 the proper subject-matter of an easement.” 28 29 108. I conclude against the background of the general principles, the absence of evidence 30 estalasement and ch Mr. Lchic estalasement and the rights owe estalasement and whi estalasement and seeks, w 5[1915]A.C.599 6[1890]44Ch.D.12 7[1952]Ch.488 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 30 of 35 ```
not ordinarily be granted in an easement, that Mr. Lowe has not acquired an express or implied easement over the area of Common Property which he has enclosed. Mr. Lowe also appears to raise the issue of the reasonableness of his actions. In the case of *In Re Cayman Kai Development Scheme* 8 the plaintiff association sought inter alia an injunction preventing the second defendant from operating a real estate office in breach of a restrictive covenant which limited the use of the property for other than residential purposes. In consideration was whether the non-residential use of the property to wit for the purpose of a real estate operation was a reasonable one. The defendants submitted that they had been operating the same real estate business for some 30 years, albeit on a smaller scale and that the plaintiff had not objected and thus that they should now be barred from seeking relief. Sanderson J, held that the proposed rezoning of the property and its becoming a full time real estate agency with parking for six cars and no person living in the house was a fundamentally different situation from the smaller scale activities carried on in previous years. In this case Mr. Lowe, prays in aid that a portion of the fence was already there and that he enclosed, on his account, only one side. This cannot avail him. There is a marked difference between a complete enclosure which is locked and a partially open one to which the Strata would have had immediate access. Secondly, he says in what he has done, he may void the effects that the place is now in, knees and with cement septic plough, cleaned and more earth covering it with cement rather than rather than stone that was more beautiful. 8 [2006] CILR 117, **Judgment:** Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 31 of 35
```html 1 there. He says that he was the one that had to bear the scent. None of this excuses his 2 enclosure actions. 3 112. I have considered whether his actions in completing the enclosure can be viewed in any 4 light as a reasonable response to the conditions which he details at length or to his 5 expend ing resources on it. I am not persuaded that it can. In any event it strikes me, that 6 the reasonable option would have been to erect the enclosure to block out rather than 7 include the septic plant as part of his own property. 8 9 10 113. Even if he says that it was for security reasons that he enclosed it and that this must be a 11 reasoning of Sanderson J in the cited case. The Learned Judge 12 in that case said this: 13 27 The defendant next argues that the use of its property is “reasonable” and 14 therefore it should not be enjoined from such use. First, I do not accept that 15 a real estate office is a reasonable use in the circumstances of this case. I 16 have already described the nature of the change in respect of the use and 17 operation of the premises. It is not necessarily reasonable to allow a 18 business office, with the attendant increase in traffic from staff and clients, 19 in a residential neighbourhood. Secondly, no authority was cited indicating 20 that if a use is reasonable then it may be carried on in breach of a restrictive 21 coven ant." 22 23 114. I respectfully adopt the reasoning of the Learned Judge. Thus while I cannot regard Mr. 24 Lowe’s actions as a reasonable use, even if they were, this would still not justify his 25 breach of the bye-laws. Further the fact that he has expended money and resources does 26 not justify or excuse his actions or serve to grant him some sort of easement. 27 28 29 30 31 32 Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 32 of 35 ```
CONCLUSION

¶ [115] I have considered and taken into account all of the evidence given and submissions made in this case. I have not recorded some of the evidence and submissions in this judgment. I am satisfied on balance that the Plaintiff has established its case against Mr. Lowe, that he did not obtain permission for his fencing and planting activities on the Common Property of the Strata as is required by the bye-laws. Based on my factual findings, I declare that Mr. Lowe is in breach of the bye-laws of Strata Plan 126.

¶ [116] It is not appropriate for him to block access to Common Property and even more so where that property includes the sewage treatment plant to the Complex which may require emergency access.

¶ [117] Mr. Lowe asked the Court to intervene and consider an easement or rental or lease of the area enclosed. The option of rental or grant of an easement is not one for the Court. Under the Law, this is a matter for the Strata Corporation if they wish to do so.

¶ [118] I conclude by making declarations and orders as follows: i. The First Defendant, Daniel Lowe erected fencing walls (enclosures) to the rear of the property without the permission of the Strata Corporation and is therefore in breach of the bye-laws of the Corporation; ii. The Plaintiff's request for an order for demolition of the fence to the rear of the property is granted to the extent that the First Defendant is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the fence which he erected and Lowe is required to demolish the
```markdown ### Judgment: Proprietors Strata Plan 126 v Daniel Lowe et al. Coram: Richards J. Date: 2.8.2019 Page 34 of 35

¶ [1] iii. The First Defendant, Daniel Lowe planted flowers and trees on the Common Property of the Strata Corporation without permission of the Corporation and is in breach of its bye-laws;

¶ [2] iv. The plants and trees on the Common Property are to be managed by the Strata Corporation in accordance with the bye-laws of the Corporation. Such management may include removal of such trees and plants and removal and replacement of any borders surrounding such trees and plants;

¶ [3] v. The First Defendant Daniel Lowe is prohibited from constructing, placing or landscaping the Common Property of the Strata without the express written consent of the Plaintiff's Executive Committee as is required by the bye-laws of the Strata Corporation. ### COSTS

¶ [4] 119. On the issue of costs, the Plaintiff seeks costs on an indemnity basis. It was submitted that the First Defendant had been asked repeatedly to remove the structure and that even after the Court process started had the opportunity to do so. I do not think that indemnity costs are appropriate in a case such as this. In the case of *Bennett v. Attorney General* 9 , Henderson J. discussed the difference between maintaining a defence which is merely weak and unlikely to succeed and maintaining one which is manifestly hopeless. The Learned Judge said that advancing a case which is merely weak or unlikely to succeed, may not be unreasonable in the typical case. Weak cases would succeed from time to time. The Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney rather than a matter decided on the advice of his attorney. Hence, the Learned Judge said that the advice of his attorney may prefer a litigant to have a matter decided on the advice of his attorney
```html 1 “There are also cases which are hopeless and which appear that way to 2 anyone with the requisite legal training. It is open to a judge to determine that it was 3 unreasonable to bring such a claim or advance such a defence. The usual result of such 4 a finding is that the unsuccessful party will pay costs on an indemnity basis.” 5 6 7 8 120. In this case where the Defendant appeared in person and was not advised by Counsel. I 9 do not consider that indemnity costs are appropriate. Costs are ordered in favour of the 10 Plaintiff, on the standard basis. 11 12 Dated this the 2nd day of August 2019 13 14 Honourable Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. 15 Judge of the Grand Court