Fletcher _Franz_ V Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation.pdf

indefeasibiity of title, and the defence of the registered legal interest was not applicableas the claimants were asserting a claim based on it. It was important to note, saidcounsel that the applicant had obtained probate, and entered into the agreement forthe sale of Banana Walk in 2006, some time after the restructured agreement wassubmitted which was in 2003, and so the applicant did not have the capacity, and wasnot acting as executor, at that material time.Analysis[35] I accept the submissions of counsel for the respondent that in respect of theorder of Pusey J, there is nothing to stay the execution thereof, and I have treated theapplication as one for an interim injunction pending appeal as this was the approachadopted by counsel for both parties.It is clear that when an appellant is pursuingsuch an application, for an interim injunction pending appeal, under rule 2.11 (1) (c) ofthe Court of Appeal Rules 2002 the test pursuant to the dicta of Morrison JA in MichaelLevy v Jamaica Redevelopment Foundation Inc and Harrison JA in NCB v Olintis whether the appellant has reasonable grounds of appeal, or has serious issues to becanvassed on appeal or has a good arguable appeal. In examining whether theappellant has crossed the threshold the question is, whether in exercising his discretionto refuse injunctive relief the learned trial judge was plainly wrong.[36] There appear to be 4 main issues which may be pursued on appeal. These are:-(i) At the time when the notices of demand were issued in May 2009were the loans and mortgages statute barred and/orirrecoverable?