Long occupation fails to secure injunction in family property dispute

Miller said she had occupied part of a Kingston family property since 1985 with her grandaunt’s permission, later spending more than $10 million on repairs and improvements. After receiving notices to leave, she claimed ownership through adverse possession or an equitable interest arising from family assurances and expenditure.

Justice Kamar Henry-Anderson found no serious issue to be tried on the evidence supporting the injunction application. The occupation remained permissive until the 2025 notice to quit, undermining adverse possession. The alleged promise and improvements lacked sufficient detail, and expenditure receipts had not been produced. The judge also found that Miller had offered to give an undertaking in damages, but provided neither the undertaking nor evidence of her financial ability to honour it.

The July ruling refused interim relief and awarded the defendants the application’s costs. It did not finally determine ownership: the substantive claim’s first hearing was adjourned to 15 February 2027, with further evidence permitted and mediation directed by consent.

Interlocutory ruling delivered 21 July 2026. The judgment sets future procedural steps; this article does not confirm that those steps occurred or that the timetable remains unchanged. Later orders and appeal status have not been verified.