Miller v Gianne
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Henderson, J.) |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2006 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 15 November 2006 |
(Henderson, J.)
Attorneys: Ritch & Connolly for the plaintiff; Diamond Law Associates for Gianne; Appleby Hunter Bailhache for Condoco Grand Cayman Resort Ltd.
Civil Procedure-disclosure-Norwich Pharmacal order
The plaintiff agreed to settle matrimonial proceedings in California. Her husband claimed to be out of work, with a limited earning capacity and no assets beyond those disclosed, and effectively bankrupt. On the basis of his representation, the plaintiff surrendered her right to spousal support. Within days of the judgment, she discovered that a company of which her husband was the sole director was the owner of four units in a development in the Cayman Islands, with a value of over US$23m.
The plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of California against her husband, and a parallel action in the Cayman Islands, seeking damages. In a separate proceeding, she obtained from the Grand Court a Norwich Pharmacal order, requiring the vendor of the units to disclose the agreements of sale and other related documents with a view to proving that her husband was the beneficial owner of the units. Shortly afterwards, the Superior Court of California dismissed her action on the ground that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction.
The vendor applied to the Grand Court for an order under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision) permitting it to make the disclosure. The court allowed the disclosure, and made a further order releasing the plaintiff from her implied undertaking not to use the documents for a purpose other than the proceedings in which they were disclosed. The husband later obtained a further order in the Grand Court, dismissing the plaintiff”s Cayman action as procedurally defective and on the basis that the Family Court in California was the forum conveniens for her damages claim.
The husband applied to the Grand Court for the discharge of the Norwich Pharmacal order, submitting that it should not have been granted as there was already an existing action; that his wife had been able to bring proceedings against him and plead her case without the relief; and that the vendor was a ‘mere witness’ to the information and therefore outside the scope of such an order. He further submitted that there were already mechanisms such as the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) (Cayman Islands) Order 1978 in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Afonso Henrique Alves Braga (in his capacity as Administrator) Plaintiff v 1. Equity Trust Company (Cayman) Ltd 2. CIBC Bank and Trust Company (Cayman) Ltd 3. Commerce Management Services Ltd 4. Commerce Corporate Services Ltd 5. Commerce Advisory Services Ltd Defendants 1. Arnage Holdings Ltd 2. Brooklands Holdings Ltd 3. Securinvest Holdings S.A. 4. Banco Rural S.A. 5. Katia Rabello Applicants
...SeeGianne v Miller in the Court of Appeal (above, at page 12) and approving the decision of the Grand Court per Henderson J. (at 2006 CILR Note 26). There it was further held, that the Evidence Order contained no provision which might oust the equitable jurisdiction of the court and, in the......
- Gianne v Miller