Cayman Islands News Bureau Ltd v Cohen

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Collett, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1988
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 25 February 1988

Grand Court

(Collett, C.J.)

CAYMAN ISLANDS NEWS BUREAU LIMITED

and

COHEN and COHEN ASSOCIATES LIMITED

P. Lamontagne, Q.C. and G. Ritchie for the plaintiffs;

R.D. Alberga, Q.C. and R. Neilson for the defendants.

Cases cited:

(1) Aramco Ltd., In re, 1980–83 CILR 202, considered.

(2) Att.-Gen. v. SillemENR(1864), 10 H.L.C. 704; 11 E.R. 1200.

(3) Rawson Trust Co. Ltd. v. G.C.T.C. Ltd., 1980–83 CILR 214, considered.

(4) Stewart Chartering Ltd. v. C. & O. Managements S.A. (Practice Note), [1980] 1 W.L.R. 460; [1980] 1 All E.R. 718; [1980] 2 Lloyd”s Rep. 116.

Legislation construed:

Grand Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, r.23(1):

‘Where the defendant has appeared to a writ of summons which is specially endorsed, the plaintiff may, on affidavit made by himself or any other person who can swear positively to the facts, verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed (if any) and

stating that in his belief there is no defence to the action, apply to the Court for leave to enter final judgment for the amount so endorsed . . . .’

Grand Court Law (Law 8 of 1975), s.20(2): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 58, lines 34–37.

Rules of the Supreme Court, O.14, r.1:

‘Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has given notice of intention to defend the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that that defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ . . . apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant.’

O.27, r.3: ‘Where admissions of fact or of part of a case are made by a party to a cause or matter either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties and the Court may give judgment or make such order, on the application as it thinks just.

An application for an order under this rule may be made by motions or summons.’

Civil Procedure-judgments and orders-summary judgment-Grand Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, r.23 governs Cayman practice and procedure not English Rules of Supreme Court, O.14, r.1 and O.27, r.3-r.23 restricted to actions commenced by specially endorsed writ claiming liquidated amount-no inherent jurisdiction to give summary judgment merely because convenient, economical and time-saving if not within r.23

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment before the trial of proceedings brought against the defendants, based on certain alleged admissions by them.

The plaintiffs had begun proceedings against the defendants by originating summons seeking inter alia an account in respect of the defendant”s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Grand Court permitted the proceedings to be continued as if they had been commenced by writ but the Court of Appeal (in proceedings reported at 1986–87 CILR 370SC) ruled that they should continue by way of originating summons as they had begun. The plaintiffs, relying on the English Rules of the Supreme Court, O.27, r.3 then applied by summons for leave to enter judgment against the defendants before trial. The defendants in turn sought an order striking out that summons.

The defendants submitted that the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment under O.27, r.3 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court because that rule did not apply in the Cayman Islands; the only applicable rule was r.23 of the Grand Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, the phrasing of which did not in fact permit summary judgment to be entered in the present circumstances.

...