Privy Council delivers judgment in appeal arising from a decades-old land dispute
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has dismissed an appeal arising from a long-running land dispute in St Christopher and Nevis, concluding that the Court of Appeal was entitled to strike out the case because of substantial delays in its prosecution and conduct amounting to an abuse of process.
In Wycliffe Baird v David Goldgar and four others [2026] UKPC 23, the Board considered whether the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court had applied the correct legal tests when it struck out Mr Baird’s appeal for want of prosecution and abuse of process.
The dispute stems from an option agreement executed in February 1989 for the purchase of approximately 150 acres of land at Major’s Bay, later increased to 175.56 acres. The transaction was due to close in February 1991, but completion never took place. Mr Baird subsequently issued proceedings in May 1993 seeking damages or specific performance of the agreement.
The litigation continued for decades. A trial took place before Carter J in May 2016, and judgment was handed down on 30 July 2019. The judge found that Mr Baird’s failure to complete the transaction in February 1991 amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and dismissed his claim.
Mr Baird filed a notice of appeal in September 2019 and received the hearing transcripts in April 2020. Under the applicable procedural rules, the record of appeal should have been filed by June 2020. However, it was not filed until March 2023, resulting in a delay of approximately two years and nine months.
In December 2023, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal, describing the delay as inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial. The court found that the respondents had been deprived of the benefit of a judgment in their favour while the appeal remained unresolved.
The Privy Council examined the legal framework governing strike-out applications and provided guidance on the distinction between appeals struck out for want of prosecution and those struck out for abuse of process.
The Board held that applications based on want of prosecution should generally be assessed by considering the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the merits of the appeal and any prejudice caused. By contrast, abuse-of-process cases require consideration of additional factors showing that the conduct amounts to a misuse of the court’s procedures.
Delivering the judgment, Lord Hamblen concluded that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the relevant principles. The Board found no error of law in the decision to strike out the appeal and held that the court had been entitled to conclude that the appellant’s conduct demonstrated a sufficient disregard for court rules and procedures.
The Privy Council therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the strike-out order.