Garren Intl Inc. v Wight
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Hull, J.) |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1985 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 22 March 1985 |
(Hull, J.)
W. Rodger for the plaintiff;
S. McField for the defendants.
(1) Samuels v. Linzi Dresses Ltd., [1981] Q.B. 115; [1980] 1 All E.R. 803; (1979), 124 Sol. Jo. 187, distinguished.
(2) Whistler v. HancockELR(1878), 3 Q.B.D. 83; 37 L.T. 639; 47 L.J.Q.B. 152;26W.R. 211.
Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (England, S.I. 1965/1776), O.24, r.16:
‘(1) If any party who is required by any of the foregoing rules, or by any order made thereunder, to make discovery of documents . . . fails to comply . . . the Court may make such order as it thinks just including, in particular, an order that . . .the defence be struck out and judgment be entered accordingly.’
r.17: ‘Any order made under this Order . . . may, on sufficient cause being shown, be revoked or varied by a subsequent order or direction of the Court made or given at or before the trial of the cause or matter in connection with which the original order was made.’
Civil Procedure-discovery-failure to comply with order for discovery-once judgment entered, court cannot revoke or vary order, under O.24, r.16, that judgment to be entered if defendant fails to make discovery within time limit-until judgment entered, application for extension of time entertained even after expiry of time limit; but refused if undue delay by defendant
The defendants applied for an order setting aside a judgment entered against them upon their failure to comply with an order for discovery made under the Rules of the Supreme Court, O.24, r.16.
In proceedings brought against them by the plaintiff, the defendants were ordered to make discovery of certain documents. They failed to do so and the court then made an order under O.24, r.16 whereby, unless the defendants made discovery within 14 days, the defence would be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
The defendants failed to comply with this order and three weeks after the time limit had expired judgment was entered against them. Three weeks later the defendants made the present application for an order setting aside the judgment, and sought an extension of time to allow them to comply with the order for discovery. .
The court considered whether, on a proper interpretation of O.24, r.17, it had jurisdiction to entertain such an application and whether, if it did have jurisdiction, it could properly grant an extension of time so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caribbean Islands Development Ltd (in Official Liquidation) Plaintiff v First Caribbean International Bank (Cayman) Ltd Defendant
...never to be ignored, comes a long way behind the other two.’ 54 To similar effect, inGarren International Inc. v G. Wight and M. Wight, 1984-85 CILR 324, Hull J, in respect of an application for relief from an unless order, held that ‘the [English] Court of Appeal made it clear inSamuels v ......