1. Phillip Hyre 2. Kevon Hyre Plaintiffs v HSBC Bank (Cayman) Ltd Defendant

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin
• Judgment Date: 01 February 2013
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: Cause No: G 0139/2012
• Date: 01 February 2013

Between:

1. Phillip Hyre

2. Kevon Hyre

Plaintiffs

and

HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited

Defendant

[2013] CIGC J0221-1

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin

Cause No: G 0139/2012

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

SUPPLEMENTARY RULING ON COSTS

1 On the 4^th January 2013 I delivered my Judgment in the above Cause, and I invited counsel to provide written submissions on the question of costs of these proceedings. I confirm that I have read and reviewed the submissions of Mr. Brady, counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Mr. Jones, counsel on behalf of the Defendant.

2 On the 4^th January 2013 I dismissed the Plaintiffs' Originating Summons and, consequently, I can find no reason for not ordering costs to follow the event.

3 Paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Variation of Charge executed by the parties on the 27^th April 2009 states that:

‘The chargor shall pay on demand all fees and expenses that may he hereafter payable thereon, and together also with all fees and expenses that may be hereafter incurred by the chargee of, and incidental to, the protection and enforcement from time to time of the chargee's rights.’

4 I find that in defending the Plaintiffs' Originating Summons the Defendant incurred fees and expenses which are, by definition, of and incidental to the protection and enforcement of the Defendant's rights.

5 Furthermore, under paragraph 10 of the same Schedule to the Variation of Charge dated the 27^th April 2009, the Defendant incurred legal fees and expenses in respect of the protection and enforcement of its rights to sell charged properties upon default by the Plaintiffs, as set out in paragraph 10.

6 In addition, GCR 0. 62 r.43 reads:

‘A person who claims to be entitled pursuant to contract to recover the fees and expenses incurred in enforcing that contract shall be entitled to judgment for the amount found due under the contract and such amount shall not be subject to taxation pursuant to this Order’

7 Accordingly I accept the submissions made by counsel for the Defendant in respect of its costs and find that the Schedule to the Variation of Charge forms part of the contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant — as its terms expressly state that:‘It is hereby agreed that the [Plaintiffs] and the[Defendant] hereby respectfully covenant with each other…’ (at page 21 of Exhibit ‘LMB-1’) and it is executed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as a deed...