(1) ARC Capital LLC (2) Haida Investments Ltd Petitioners v Asia Pacific Ltd Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Andrew J. Jones
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2013
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2013] CIGC J0215-1
• Docket Number: Cause No. FSD 18 of 2012 (AJJ)
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 12 February 2013

In the Matter of the Companies Law (2012 Revision) and in the Matter of Trikona Advisors Limited

Between:

(1) ARC Capital LLC

(2) Haida Investments Ltd

Petitioners

and

Asia Pacific Limited

Respondent

[2013] CIGC J0215-1

The Honourable Mr. Justice Andrew J. Jones QC

Cause No. FSD 18 of 2012 (AJJ)

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

REASONS

1 Immediately after I pronounced the Court's winding up order on 31^st January 2013, counsel for the Petitioner sought to apply for an order for costs on the indemnity basis and counsel for the Respondent sought to apply for a stay pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It seemed to me that both these applications should be made by summons on notice to the other side and that they should be supported by written submissions. Both counsel were content with this approach and I therefore directed that, if the parties wished to pursue these applications, they must serve a summons and supporting written submission within seven days, my intention being that the applications would be heard consecutively on a convenient date during the course of this week. Counsel for the Respondent failed to comply with this direction and chose take a different course by applying for his client's appeal to be heard on a expedited basis on 14/15^th February (when the Court of Appeal was expected to be in session to hear an appeal which was in fact settled) or on 18/19^th February, in which case there would have been no real need to apply to this Court for a stay. In the event the Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal on an expedited basis and it is now set down for hearing on 9/10^th April.

2 The fact that the Respondent had a potential alternative remedy is not a justification for failing to comply with the directions contained in this Court's Order. It seems to me that Counsel for the Respondent could and should have protected his client's position by serving his application in a timely manner, in the knowledge that it could have been withdrawn if the Court of Appeal had been willing to hear the appeal later in the week. In the event, the time limit was allowed to expire and Counsel for the Petitioner is now expected to deal with the matter on less than 24 hours' notice. In my judgment the Respondent has failed to comply with an explicit time limit and failed to show cause why that time limit should be waived or extended. Nevertheless, I did in fact hear the application...