Gianne v Miller

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Zacca, P., Taylor and Forte, JJ.A.)
• Judgment Date: 20 July 2007
• Date: 20 July 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)

Court of Appeal

(Zacca, P., Taylor and Forte, JJ.A.)

GIANNE

and

MILLER and CONDOCO GRAND CAYMAN RESORTS LIMITED

Attorneys: Diamond Law Associates for the appellant; Ritch & Connolly for the first respondent; Appleby Spurling Hunter for the second respondent.

Civil Procedure-disclosure-Norwich Pharmacal order

The first respondent alleged that the appellant, her then husband, had deceived her into giving up claims against him in divorce proceedings in California by asserting that he had no assets, whereas he owned four condominium units in the Cayman Islands allegedly worth US$23m. She brought an action in the Grand Court for breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation, which was dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens, and a similar action in the Superior Court of California was dismissed on the ground that the California Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction. She obtained an ex parte Norwich Pharmacal order against the second respondent (the vendor of the units) and, following its application under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision) for leave to make the discovery requested, it was ordered to disclose documents indicating that it had sold the units to the husband. The wife was given leave to use the documents in any further related actions in the Cayman Islands or California. Following disclosure of the documents, the husband”s application to have the order ‘discharged’ was refused by the Grand Court (Henderson, J.) on the ground, inter alia, that it had already been fully complied with. These proceedings are noted at 2006 CILR N [26]. The wife applied to the Grand Court for a declaration that she was part-owner of the husband”s Cayman company (Redwood Hotel Investment Corp.) or of its interest in the units and brought a similar action in the California Family Court. An application by the husband to dismiss the Cayman proceedings for want of jurisdiction was dismissed. In further proceedings (reported at 2007 CILR 18), her application for a Mareva injunction restraining him from dealing with the units was adjourned by the Grand Court (Smellie, C.J.) pending a decision of the California Family Court as to whether they were community property under California law.

On appeal against the Norwich Pharmacal order and the disclosure order under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law, the husband argued that the Grand Court had erred in holding that further litigation of the validity of...