ICIC (Overseas) Ltd v Pharaon
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Zacca, P., Georges and Rowe, JJ.A. |
| Judgment Date | 17 August 1999 |
| Date | 17 August 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands) |
Zacca, P., Georges and Rowe, JJ.A.
Attorneys: Hunter & Hunter for the applicants; Neville Levy & Assocs. for the shareholder, PHL Holdings Ltd.; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
COURTS
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL-leave to appeal
Damages were awarded to the applicants by the Grand Court (and modified by the Court of Appeal) against the second respondent, a Bahamian company in receivership, for conspiracy to defraud. Because the company would remain insolvent in any event, the Bahamian courts refused to grant the receiver leave to pursue an appeal against the Cayman award to the Privy Council. The company”s shareholder applied to the Court of Appeal for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the company”s name or on its own behalf.
Held: The Privy Council had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a person affected by a judgment of the Court of Appeal who had not been a party to the proceedings in that court, since he was a ‘party concerned’ to whom notice of an appeal should be given under s.4 of the Cayman Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) Order 1984 (Re Whitehead, ex p. Water Street Pawnbrokery Ltd. (1968), 11 W.I.R. 453, followed). However, the shareholder could not be considered to be a person so affected, even though it would lose its shareholding if the judgment stood, since a successful appeal could result in no practical benefit to either the creditors or shareholders of an insolvent company.
Zacca, P., Georges and Rowe, JJ.A.
Attorneys: Hunter & Hunter for the applicants; Neville Levy & Assocs. for the shareholder, PHL Holdings Ltd.; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
COURTS
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL-leave to appeal
Damages were awarded to the applicants by the Grand Court (and modified by the Court of Appeal) against the second respondent, a Bahamian company in receivership, for conspiracy to defraud. Because the company would remain insolvent in any event, the Bahamian courts refused to grant the receiver leave to pursue an appeal against the Cayman award to the Privy Council. The company”s shareholder applied to the Court of Appeal for conditional leave to appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial