The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) has affirmed key property rights in the Cayman Islands. We summarise how Blake Morgan guided the Appellants through a successful Privy Council appeal.
On 23 June 2025, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its decision in Cayman Shores Development Ltd and another v The Proprietors, Strata Plan No.79 and others [2025] UKPC 27. The ruling marks a pivotal success for the Appellants, reversing the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal decision and confirming that vital recreational rights, intended to benefit residential units in the former Britannia Resort, remain enforceable as easements.
Blake Morgan acted as agents for the Appellants, providing strategic guidance and procedural support throughout the appeal process, allowing local attorneys and Counsel to concentrate fully on the legal arguments.
Background to successful Privy Council appeal
The Britannia Resort, developed in the late 1980s and 1990s in Grand Cayman, offered a combination of hotel facilities, residential units, and shared recreational amenities including a golf course, beach club, and tennis courts. Purchasers of the residential units were promised ongoing rights to use these facilities – rights intended to be attached to their properties and pass to future owners.
These rights were documented in formal agreements and registered against the land titles. However, they were described and entered into the Land Register as “restrictive agreements” rather than “easements” – a mischaracterisation that became central to the case. When the properties were later sold to Cayman Shores Development Ltd, the new owner challenged the enforceability of those rights.
The legal issue of property rights
The core legal question was whether the recreational rights were properly registered and thus binding on successors in title. The lower courts in the Cayman Islands ruled that the mislabelling of the rights as restrictive agreements rendered them unenforceable.
The Privy Council’s ruling
The Privy Council overturned those rulings. In a detailed judgment delivered by Lord Briggs, the Board concluded that:
- The rights granted were, in substance, easements, even if mistakenly labelled as restrictive agreements.
- The registration was valid and effective; the essential purpose of the Registered Land Act, being to provide public notice of property rights, had been fulfilled.
- The Registrar’s approval of the documents and the filing of the instruments confirmed compliance with procedural requirements, despite minor deviations from standard form.
The Board emphasised that the misdescription did not undermine the enforceability of the rights and rejected the notion that form should trump substance in a modern land registration system.
This decision affirms a practical, substance-over-form approach to land registration. It provides much-needed clarity in a jurisdiction where recreational rights are increasingly part of residential and resort developments.
Role of Blake Morgan
As Privy Council agents, Blake Morgan’s role was to steer the Appellants through the highly specialised JCPC process. This included managing documentation, deadlines, and compliance with procedural rules, while coordinating closely with local Cayman Attorneys Nick Dunne, Daisy Boulter and Alex Stasiuk of Walkers and Counsel Mark Sefton KC and Joseph Ollech of Falcon Chambers who presented the substantive case at the hearing.
Blake Morgan’s involvement ensured that strategic and procedural matters were dealt with in London by experienced experts, a key contribution to the Appellants’ case.
If you have any queries about this or another Privy Council appeal, please contact Nicola Diggle of Blake Morgan’s Privy Council team.
Explore more insights
Articles 08 July
Privilege and litigation funding – a tightrope walk
A recent decision by the High Court has held that communications with a litigation funder (a third party)…
Articles 06 July
YouTube Shorts triumph: the Court of Appeal confirms descriptive trade marks offer limited protection
Are commonly used, descriptive words such as “shorts” capable of being adequately protected from use by others? The…
Articles 02 July
No service, no jurisdiction: lessons from Valentine London v Secretary of State
The High Court’s decision in Valentine London Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government…

