By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Chief Justice has blasted “impropriety” by successive foreign investors who hatched a scheme to “wrongfully acquire” Crown Land that included a public road reservation in Harbour Island.

Sir Ian Winder, in a February 20, 2025, verdict, ruled that Laura Dodge and Sunset Harbour Resorts had both “engaged in a systematic” effort to take property they knew belonged to the Government and, by extension, the Bahamian people which had been reserved for a road reservation.

In rejecting Ms Dodge’s petition to obtain a certificate of title to the Crown Land, which was divided into two plots sized 3,473 square feet and 3,389 square feet, Sir Ian said he “could not improve” on submissions from Lawrence Dawson - who was one of two rival claimants to the property along with the Government - on what had been going on.

Mr Dawson, in filings with the Supreme Court, alleged that Ms Dodge had merely inherited and taken over a scheme “to appropriate public lands” that was initiated by Sunset Harbour Resorts and its then-principal, Peter Dempsey. The latter owns the Sunset Harbour Development, a residential project, and marina that lies immediately to the east of the subject Crown Lands.

Mr Dawson, who owns three parcels of land in Sunset Harbour, asserted that Sunset Harbour Resorts on May 18, 2009, obtained “a confirmatory conveyance” from the development’s previous owners showing the Crown Land was now included in their transaction despite the deal having closed exactly nine years earlier in May 2000.

A “manipulated survey” plan was then used to conceal the Government and Bahamian people’s interest in the Crown Land and road reservation. This plan was then used by Sunset Harbour Resorts to obtain approval for the transaction from the Investments Board and apply for a building permit from local government and Town Planning Committee.

Mr Dawson said Ms Dodge merely picked up the “manipulated survey” plan used by Sunset Harbour Resorts and used it to obtain Investments Board approval for her purchase of the same Crown Land from the latter entity on June 25, 2018. He added that Sunset Harbour Resorts’ bid to obtain a building permit was designed to prevent the Government from seeking to reclaim ownership via the legal principle of “estoppel”.

Sir Ian, backing Mr Dawson’s analysis, also rejected Ms Dodge’s assertion that the Government was “estopped” - meaning it could not go back and reclaim the land in dispute - because of both the Investments Board permit being granted and her paying real property tax on both parcels since 2018. And, as a result, he dismissed her Quieting Titles application. 

Setting out the background to the case, the Chief Justice said Ms Dodge asserted she deserved to be granted a title certificate on the basis of a possessory interest in the two parcels dating back to 2009 and Sunset Harbour Resorts’ ‘confirmatory conveyance’. She also claimed she only needed to prove title to the properties for 12 years.

However, the Government filed an adverse claim asserting that it was the beneficial owner of the two properties as they were both Crown Land and part of a road reservation known as Dunmore Street. And Mr Dawson, too, claimed a possessory title on the basis “of rights of occupation and use” over a 16-year period. He said he repaired the jetty and undertook maintenance on both properties.

Sir Ian, noting that all Crown grants identified the two land parcels as a road reservation for Dunmore Street, noted that Sunset Harbour Resorts acquired the Sunset Harbour Development from the estate of Siegfried Broemel on May 18, 2000. And, more than six years later, on October 2, 2006, Mr Dempsey applied for a Crown Land lease of both properties on Sunset Harbour Resorts’ behalf.

Mr Dempsey further pushed his claim for a lease on September 24, 2007, when he told the permanent secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office that “the area concerned is still being polluted by human excrement and is a health hazard. We wish to take it under control through a lease so we can eliminate the problem and beautify the area”.

Audley Greaves, the official in the Prime Minister’s Office then dealing with Crown Land issues, wrote back on November 23, 2007, saying the issue was being assessed. And, to support his application, Mr Dempsey produced affidavits to confirm “the existence of the wall and bath house” on the properties for more than 50 years.

Yet, while the Government was still considering the Crown Land lease application, Mr Dempsey and Sunset Harbour Resorts obtained a “confirmatory conveyance” from the Broemels seeking “to clarify and confirm the intention” to include the two parcels in their original 2000 deal. Mr Dempsey sought “to establish a claim to adverse possession” of the properties the existence of amenities such as a path, dock house and cesspit.

Mr Dempsey was finally granted an a renewable annual lease over the Crown Land parcels on June 18, 2009, paying $2,500 per annum. Ms Dodge acquired the two parcels from Sunset Harbour Resorts on June 25, 2018, and asserted she willingly “assumed the risks” given that she was inheriting a possessory title by obtaining the Investments Board permit and paying real property tax.

However, Sir Ian noted: “While the plan submitted to the Bahamas Investment Authority (BIA) had a description of the parcels as being part of a Crown Reserve, the areas where the properties were shaded had blotted out the words ‘Road Reservation (Crown Land)’.”

The Chief Justice, finding “it is not seriously disputed” that the two parcels formed the road reservation, added that Ms Dodge - as a result of both properties being Crown Land - “must show a continuous uninterrupted possession of 60 years” for her adverse possession claim to be upheld.

This, he said, she could not do as it would mean her possession needed to date back to February 20, 1962 - a date when Sunset Harbour Development had not even been born. And Sir Ian noted that Ms Dodge’s predecessor, Mr Dempsey, who she purported to acquire the properties from had admitted they were owned by the Government by his 2007 application for a Crown Land lease.

The Chief Justice then reproduced Mr Dawson’s submission, which said: “[Dodge] was aware that the land which adjoined the Sunset Harbour Development was Crown Land comprising an existing public roadway known as Dunmore Street and her participation... in the scheme of her predecessor to appropriate public lands.

“This contention includes the conduct of [Sunset] with regard to the concealment of the Crown’s interest and the public rights when applying for the approval of the Investment Board in respect of the acquisition of the property pursuant to the confirmatory conveyance and the subsequent misrepresentations or omissions to the office of the administrator/Town Planning Committee when applying for a building permit....”

Asserting that there was “continuing illegality from the obstruction of the public road known as Dunmore Street”, Mr Dawson said Sunset Harbour Resorts used the “confirmatory conveyance” and “manipulated” survey plan to seek Investments Board approval for its acquisition of the two Crown Land parcels on June 5, 2102. In doing so, it concealed the road reservation’s existence from the Government agency.

This occurred after the Crown Land lease offer of 2009, but Mr Dawson said there was no evidence that Sunset Harbour Resorts ever accepted it. The latter did apply for a building permit for the Crown Land in January 2015, which Mr Dawson claimed was “clearly misleading” because the developer said it had obtained permission from an unnamed owner/lessor for the project.

Sir Ian, in rejecting Ms Dodge’s petition, concluded: “The claim is tainted by the impropriety of being part of a scheme to wrongfully acquire Crown Land over which there is a public road known as Dunmore Street... 

“I am satisfied that Dodge and her predecessor in title, Sunset, engaged in a systematic scheme in an effort to try to simply take the properties which they knew was the Crown’s property for a road reservation.

“In that process, Dodge was not candid with the Government as to what was being acquired when these applications were being made as at no point did she indicate that she was purporting to purchase Crown Land interest. Such conduct ought to disentitle any claim for proprietary estoppel and the same is rejected.”