Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Tales From The Courts Part VII – Madam Justice Issues Order to a Dead Person

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Far right – Madam Justice Elneth Kentish

Arising from BU’s Tales From The Courts Part VI – – Chief Justice Marston Gibson Scores An F In Year One a few BU commenters expressed surprise, and horror at our report which challenged an order handed down by Miss Elneth Kentish who to the chagrin of many occupies a seat on the Bench. A part of the BU report which is the cause of much derision amongst the legal fraternity states:

“Miss Elneth Kentish has produced an order in which there are no parties and one of the purported parties has died and has not had an administrator appointed for them.”

The Order under scrutiny is a public document and can be had on request from the Registry. This matter has mushroomed in a credibility issue for BU. To quell concerns as to the veracity of the BU report we publish the Order with thanks to our friends in the legal community.

Kentish Order, pages 1,2,3,4

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

96 responses to “Tales From The Courts Part VII – Madam Justice Issues Order to a Dead Person”

  1. Neil Clarke Avatar
    Neil Clarke

    That should be see PLC-Easements: creation at property.practicallaw.com/1-385-9229 and the decison in Russell v Watts (1884) 25 Ch. D 559.

  2. David Avatar
    David

    Can we get consensus on what has been agreed by some as a matter of ‘trite’ law?

  3. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.102934236427969.7422.100001341794446&type=3

    This woman is accusing Barbados Immigration of wrong doings just look at her FB page photos

  4. ac Avatar
    ac

    neil clarke i know of a prestigious law firm outside of the island who is looking for a lawyer of your calibre.

  5. David Avatar
    David

    @ac

    Why do you try so hard to be deliberately provocative. It does not become you.

  6. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Amazing

    You should rest yourself too. Of course a Declaration is an ‘order’. It was made to benefit the applicant and Angela Evelyn. These sorts of matters fall under the purview of the Law of Property Act Ch 236. We are NOT talking about what an easement IS – so your reference to general equitable principles is by the way and, frankly, juvenile showing off. Better stick to what you’re used to.

    @ John

    Angela Evelyn is alive. The Order was made on 26 July, 2012 and filed on 27 August, 2012. The Fixed Date Claim Form and the Applicant’s Affidavit were filed on 23 September, 2011.

    @ Neil Clarke

    Don’t know you but thank Christ someone else knows what they’re talking about.

    I have seen page two of the Declaration. It simply begins to state what the order is in similar terms to what is expressed on page 1. There was an Applicant – whom I can confidently say was the mortgagee. How do I know? Wait and see.

    @ Amused

    Your plan for Kentish has failed and you are shown to be a liar. But more to come. The joke is now on you.

  7. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Ross kickin’ man … KICKIN’ … YEEEE HAAA

    哈哈哈

  8. ac Avatar
    ac

    david @ ac
    Why do you try so hard to be deliberately provocative. It does not become you.

    ac

    i was going to ignore but there are times when an accusation should merit a response and this is such a time
    for your information my comment was intended to be a compliment and there is nothing provocative or sinister about it. sometimes one is too quick and accusatory of peoples actions instead of seeing what’s good .

  9. Samantha Avatar
    Samantha

    @RR

    Amused has demonstrated time and again that he is a vacuous clown who enjoys commenting on matters way outside his limited knowledge. However, when he is confronted, he decides to attack instead of admitting his intellectual limitations. But pity him, I suspect that he was the lawyer mentioned in Pudding and Souse last Saturday. LOL.

  10. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Yah see me … I is talk bad ’bout lawyers … don’ like them fah shite. But Ross, he has always gotten an honorary pass from me… Unlimited …! YEE HAAA ….

  11. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ Samantha

    Hello.

    @ BAF

    Awww.

    @ David

    If, as you say, the BU ‘family’ needs to reach a consensus about what is trite law – only one conclusion is possible : and that is the CASE AGAINST KENTISH IS NOT PROVEN. May we now expect BU to withdraw the slur against her good name with an appropriate apology?

  12. ac Avatar
    ac

    @ RR

    i concur

  13. Amazing !!!. Avatar
    Amazing !!!.

    @ Neil Clarke .
    I repeat .. an easement under the Rule in Wheelon V Burrows is in fact AN easement of necessity .

  14. Neil Clarke Avatar
    Neil Clarke

    @Amazing!!!

    Then you should refer us to some authoritative source that will establish this…are you an authority? Or a bushlawyer?

  15. Interested !! Avatar
    Interested !!

    @ Neil Clarke
    Readers to this blog are hardly interested in any prolonged debate on the very academic Wheeldon v Burrows doctrine . If you yourself are not a ” bushlawyer ” you should know where to find the authority by which there will pass to the grantee all those continuous and apparent easements WHICH ARE NECESSARY to the reasonable enjoyment of the property granted ..A grantor is never allowed to deny a grantee what is at the time of the grant OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY for its reasonable enjoyment .
    As a general observation let me enjoin you that there is no benefit in being impolite and offensive in trying to make an academic point .

  16. Amazing !!!. Avatar
    Amazing !!!.

    @ Neil Clarke
    I am sure Amazing is perfectly able to represent himself . I would therefore not try to speak on his behalf

  17. Interested !!. Avatar
    Interested !!.

    Of course that should be INTERESTED !!

  18. David Avatar
    David

    To whom it may concern note that BU was fully briefed on this matter and we will NOT be bullied. That said let other views contend with decorum.

  19. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    “To whom it may concern” … HA HA HA … But David who da is … Seems to me like you padding out …

  20. David Avatar
    David

    @BAFBFP

    Believe what you like the issue with our Courts will blow your mind.

  21. old onion bags Avatar
    old onion bags

    @ David
    May we now expect BU to withdraw the slur against her good name with an appropriate apology?
    ************************
    “Shall or shall we?…the question still bears…and suits to suit….that we all we can be.”
    OOB

  22. David Avatar
    David

    @Onions

    BU is NOT about defending the status quo. In fact the status quo has brought us her; now. We have put BU’s view on this matter and so far several legal eagles commenting have disagreed. The fact that some commenters have align themselves with one side or the other is not relevant at this stage.

  23. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ David

    “We will not be bullied” – maybe not – but you have no problem in brainwashing the rest of us to believe lies. You people have a responsibility. If you don’t shoulder it you remain little people, silly people, people who are no better – and, in fact, because of your hypocrisy are far worse – than those you denigrate daily. What hope is there if you show yourselves – people we have trusted – to be no better than the rest?

    I note that Amazing and Interested have got their knickers twisted. And whatever happened to Puzzled?

    Neil Clarke is criticized by Interested for being pedantic because of name dropping and being ‘offensive”. Gee – and it was superboy Amazing who name dropped in the first place. But that’s BU I suppose. The lack of integrity is, indeed, amazing.

    NOW: for $18.00 the world can obtain a copy of the file documents from Registry. They show as follows:-

    By a deed of gift in 2004 a family member (seemingly – same surname) transferred a parcel of land to Angela Evelyn. The land was identified by reference to a plan duly drawn up by a land surveyor in 2001. That plan showed that there was a right of way over the property. It was the intention of the grantor that the gift would be made with the benefit of the right of way else there would be no proper access to the property. Nevertheless, seemingly the Attorneys for the grantor “erroneously omitted” the right of way from the deed of gift contrary to the grantor’s express intention.

    Since that time, the right of way has, in fact, been used on a daily basis.

    In 2006 a legal mortgage was executed by Angela Evelyn in favour of a Bank and its subsidiary. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage the Bank (first applicant) and subsidiary (second applicant) sought to perfect title to the land by a Declaration that Angela Evelyn and her successors were entitled to the right of way in fee simple.

    All proper notices were served and Angela Evelyn was heard at the hearing in Chambers on 26 July, 2012. As we know, the Declaration was granted.

    IS IT NOW TIME FOR THE APOLOGY?

  24. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    At no time has BU said that Angela Evelyn has died. And just
    to remove the probability of this failed accusation now being levelled at me, I didn’t know who had died and found it immaterial to find out, as I have always found the reports on BU to be accurate and well founded. Indeed, the BU family can itself read the comments are determine just who intimated and stated that Angela Evelyn had died. But it was not, so far as I can see, either BU nor yours humble truly.

    I have been very busy, but nonetheless took the time to investigate fully, not in the half assed way of some people who do not properly
    understand (and will never properly understand) the meaning of “in rem”.

    So, here are the facts:

    A donor gave to Angela a plot of land, being formerly a part of the donor’s own lands. The donor subsequently died and therefore the donors lands, excluding the gift to Angela, are now part of the donor’s estate. Whether or not probate and letters of administration have been sought and granted in the donor’s estate, I do not know. And I have no intention of going to the trouble of finding out, as, for our purposes, it is not relevant.

    Angela wanted to sell her plot of land. However, upon investigation of the title of the land, counsel for the purchaser determined that there was no right of way giving access to the highway from Angela’s land
    over the donor’s land. Thus, the purchaser’s counsel required that such a right of way be obtained, before any purchase could proceed.

    Therefore, an order granting such a right of way must be given to the applicant against the administrator or executor of the donor’s. Otherwise the Order is a NULLITY.

    Upon presentation of the Order of Miss Kentish, counsel for the purchaser advised the vendor that the order was a nullity (with which I completely agree) and refused to proceed with the sale of the land (with which I also completely agree).

    For the BU laypeople, whose grasp seems to be superior to those who purport to know better, the term “in rem” generally applies to
    moveable property and is used most widely in cases of admiralty law, as in a ship which can be moved. Land, however, cannot be moved and in this particular case, without the Order being given against the person who stands in the shoes of the deceased donor, I completely agree that the order is a nullity and, if challenged at any later stage, would fall. It does NOT, to my satisfaction, grant a right of way over the deceased donor’s lands. Therefore, if I had any involvement with any purchaser of the land for sale, I would be advising them to walk away and find another property to buy.

    Counsel who dissent from this view are, of course, at liberty to advise their clients as they wish.

    @David. In the circumstances, I see no reason for BU to apologize for anything. I have reviewed the BU report which says that Miss Kentish failed to name the parties to the order. This is correct.

    BU continued that, as such the Order was of no use (a nullity) – and I am here to tell you that, having discussed the matter with three members of the Inner Bar, they consider the Order to be a nullity – and a disgrace.

    BU said that one of the parties had died. It did not identify Miss Angela. Well, one of the parties HAS died. And finally, and this is the part that counts, the Order does NOT meet the requirements of the purchaser, without which, the sale will not proceed.

    End of matter. Well done to BU. Excellent and ACCURATE
    report.

  25. old onion bags Avatar
    old onion bags

    @ Amused
    At no time has BU said that Angela Evelyn has died. And just
    to remove the probability of this failed accusation now being levelled at me, I didn’t know who had died and found it immaterial to find out, as I have always found the reports on BU to be accurate and well founded. Indeed, the BU family can itself read the comments are determine just who intimated and stated that Angela Evelyn had died. But it was not, so far as I can see, either BU nor yours humble truly.
    ******************************
    HAS ANYONE GOT STAR CHICK NUMBER SO THAT I CAN ORDER 6 CRATES OF ADDLED STINK EGGS?

  26. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Onions. I have spoken to you before about using things like stink eggs and rotten cabbage as a deoderant. You too hard-eared.

  27. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    This debate becomes tiresome. David, I have submitted the following learning on easements. It should assist lay persons and others in following some of the legal principles adumbrated on this thread. See: http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/easements.pdf

  28. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    David, I don’t think that worked out. I will submit it to you as an attachment to an e-mail.

  29. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    But Amused, stink eggs and rotten cabbage are reoderants when applied to old rotten onions

  30. old onion bags Avatar
    old onion bags

    @ Outback
    You know if you come close enough too….you would get summa them eggs meant for Amused….Knave..lol.

  31. David Avatar
    David

    This debate becomes tiresome. David, I have submitted the following learning on easements. It should assist lay persons and others in following some of the legal principles adumbrated on this thread. See http://nli.northampton.ac.uk/mmb/lawacc /jrm/Land-6-Easements.htm

  32. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ Jefferson

    Amused in his role as Papinian says that YOU are “half assed”. LOL. Oh dear. The word ‘tiresome’ is a bit strong though isn’t it…well for you I mean?

    @ Amused

    You are distorting the facts..nothing new in that. The right of way already subsisted. It was shown on the 2001 plan. The plan was used by the grantor in 2004 to obtain permission, from the Chief Town Planner of the Town and Country Development Planning Office, to sub-divide the land. The grantor’s intention was therefore clear..

    Your usual obfuscations…”terribly busy”…”not relevant”….”not going to bothe”‘……’three members of the Inner Bar”…. cut no ice. You remain a pompous fraud interested only in onanism and ass-licking.

  33. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Bush Tea | October 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM. I am still laughing. Reoderant…very funny……very true!

    @old onion bags | October 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM | You are such a kind person to offer me some of your rotten eggs and I know how highly you value and love them. But my wife keeps on buying me Old Spice, so you can keep all the eggs for yourself.

    @David. I have looked at what you have posted on behalf of Jeff and, without entering into any argument or giving reasons, I state that I do not find it persuasive. In my view, if counsel has advised their client not to proceed with the purchase based on the order (which I maintain is a nullity) of Miss Kentish, I would concur with that advice. If the vendor still wishes to sell the land, absent finding a purchaser legally advised by certain counsel who do not see a problem with the order, then maybe they should take the matter back to court and get it sorted out. Properly.

  34. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    ‘I disagree without argument or giving reasons”

    What a joke.

  35. old onion bags Avatar
    old onion bags

    Amused…your slip has blown up now……you are but laughing stock. Do the noble thing now and go finish it in a cart road….ouch!

  36. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ old onion bags | October 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM |

    Go easy on Amused for the time being. He has now found out that both the CJ and Fumble is a total waste of space and time. He hates OSA but is backing MIA. He is therefore telegraphing his voting intentions to be exercised between November 29 and January 22.
    A bit of Christian feelings and mercy is in order.

  37. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Miller. Do you think that is when the elections will be? Seriously? I am sincerely asking for information. You see I don’t think so – more like March, I think. And I have a bet with two of the spurned QCs that it is March that the BLP will win the election (because of Mia of course) and I really would like to win it. So before I go and put yet more money on it and get licked down wid a big rock by SWMBO……………

  38. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Amused | October 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM |

    Freundel will be doing himself, the DLP and the country a major disservice and embarrass the nation if he were to go past February to call the elections.

    Parliament must be constitutionally dissolved by February 12 or thereabouts.
    That means the Estimates and Appropriation Bill must be debated and passed before dissolution. The upcoming Estimates will be the most important in the political annals of modern Barbados (even more intense than the 1991/92) since the current and projected state and performance of government’s finances make for sorry reading with dire consequences.

    Barbados could see its currency being pegged initially on the same level as the E.C. dollar if things really get out of hand and Freundel procrastinates and vacillates. The government’s projected revenues for the 2012/2013 period are way off mark and it is expected to get even worse with further hemorrhaging of the country’s foreign reserves. Hence, the application to the IADB for a measly US $33 million that would disappear by end of January 2013 to pay for the Dodds BOLT payment.

    Major expenditure decisions have to be made and the earlier the better for the country whichever party wins the next elections.

    It would do Freundel and his party a world of good if he bites the bullet and set aside his pride by calling elections before year end or before the Guv of the CBB report on economic performance and forex position for 2012 due mid January 2013; with a possible further downgrade staring us in the face.

    Freundel must let the people decide as early as possible. If they (the people) want back the DLP it would give them a “not-too-late” opportunity t o administer the bitter medicine before the fiscal gangrene set in.

    I would recommend to Freundel that he calls election by 29th November or 6th December to avoid further fiscal and economic embarrassment to his administration.

  39. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Amused most certainly is David’s primary (only..?) source of information … feel me … anyone ..?

  40. David Avatar
    David

    @BAFBFP

    What does your comment have to do with the issue at hand? And what empirical evidence can you point to about BU sources? Stick to what you are good at Sir.

  41. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    I know what I am good at, but David what do you think is my tipple …?

  42. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ Miller

    On Christian feelings and mercy….yes you are right but…..

    “I will arise and go to my Father and say unto him…..”

    Prodigals have to recognize their idiocy else neither feeling nor mercy serve any purpose save smug self-satisfaction. And what of the feelings of Justice Kentish in all this?

  43. John Avatar
    John

    David | October 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM |

    To whom it may concern note that BU was fully briefed on this matter and we will NOT be bullied. That said let other views contend with decorum.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Fully briefed and can’t give a simple fact like who is the dead person.

    … won’t be bullied …. this is petulant, immature little boy talk you hear when a child has been caught out.

    I expect no apology will be forthcoming to Kentish J. from BU/Amused

    Kentish J. may have plenty faults but no case has been made out against her here.

  44. David Avatar
    David

    Please see the information Jeff tried to link to in an earlier comment:

    http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/easements.pdf

  45. old onion bags Avatar
    old onion bags

    @ David
    Just me …I am not the whole of BU…but I think Kentish deserves an apology but it is your call…..(you dont have to post this)

  46. Samantha Avatar
    Samantha

    It is a crying shame that BU has allowed itself to be used once again as a medium for personal vendettas and malicious and spurious attacks.

    That David continues to rely on Amused’s “analysis” in the face of clear, contradictory evidence is simply astounding when one considers that he has proven to be ignorant of the facts at best or deceitful at worst. When caught out, he professes to be “busy” and demands that others prove that he is wrong rather than make his own case.

    You can do better, David. It is evident that this entire blog is libellous and a blatant lie; you should therefore apologise to the good lady.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

    Trending

    Discover more from Barbados Underground

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading