Barnes v Moxey& Anor (Bahamas)

Hilary Term

[2025] UKPC 5

Privy Council Appeal No 0091 of 2020

JUDGMENT

Denise Barnes (Appellant)

 v

Pearl Moxey and another (Respondents) (Bahamas)

From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas

before

Lord Reed

Lord Leggatt

Lord Stephens

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

30 January 2025

Heard on 11 April 2024

Appellant

Thomas Roe KC

Sharon Wilson KC

(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))

Respondents

Janet L R Bostwick-Dean

Tavarrie D Smith

(Instructed by Bostwick & Bostwick (Bahamas))

Lord Stephens:

1. Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a family dispute as to the title to a home situate at, and known as, Lot No 109 of the Boyd Subdivision in the Western District of the Island of New Providence ("the Property").
2. Denise Barnes ("Denise") claims title under a conveyance of the Property to her dated 8 May 2003 by the executor of the estate of Pearl Leona Moxey, her maternal grandmother ("the Conveyance"). In the alternative, she claims title by adverse possession based on her open occupation of the Property, with the intention to exclude all other persons, since 8 May 2003. Her first cousins, Pearl LC Moxey ("Pearl") and Charles J Moxey ("Charles junior"), as the administrators of the estate of their father, Charles Moxey ("Charles senior"), claim that their father's estate is entitled to a half share in fee simple in the Property under the will of Pearl Leona Moxey ("the Will"). They challenge the lawfulness of the Conveyance and contend that Denise did not acquire title to the Property by adverse possession as there was deliberate concealment of facts relevant to Charles senior's estate's right of action.
3. Denise has been in open occupation of the Property, with the intention to exclude all other persons, since 8 May 2003. It was not until 10 August 2015, some 12 years and three months later, and therefore outside the 12-year limitation period in section 16(3) of the Limitation Act 1995, that the estate of Charles senior commenced proceedings against Denise by way of counterclaim asserting entitlement to possession of the Property based on a "one half undivided interest as tenants in common in the Property." 
4.  This appeal raises two issues. Unless both are answered in favour of the estate of Charles senior, the appeal must be allowed. The first issue is whether the estate of Charles senior can avail itself of the "deliberate concealment" exception in section 41(2) of the Limitation Act 1995 to the running of the 12-year limitation period. If so, then the second issue is whether the estate of Charles senior is right to contend that the Conveyance was ineffective to convey the entire interest in the Property to Denise, instead conveying to her only a half share.
5. It is convenient for the Board to determine first the "deliberate concealment" issue. Unless the estate of Charles senior can successfully rely on this exception to the running of the 12-year limitation period, Denise's title is secure because of her long open and exclusive occupation of the Property.…