National Trust v Humphreys Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Zacca, P., Collett and Rowe, JJ.A.)
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 30 April 2003

Court of Appeal

(Zacca, P., Collett and Rowe, JJ.A.)

NATIONAL TRUST FOR THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

and

HUMPHREYS (CAYMAN) LTD.

W.L. DaCosta for the appellant;

D.S. Schofield for the respondent.

Case cited:

(1) Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commn., ELR[1969] 2 A.C. 147; [1969] 1 All E.R. 208, distinguished.

Legislation construed:

Court of Appeal Law (1996 Revision) (Law 9 of 1975, revised 1996), s.6(c): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 5.

s.6(e): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 10.

Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) (Law 28 of 1971, revised 1999), s.51(5): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 6.

Civil Procedure-costs-appeal on costs-order for costs forms part of decision of Grand Court-by Development and Planning Law, s.51(5) and Court of Appeal Law, s.6(c), decision of Grand Court on appeal from Planning Appeals Tribunal final and no further appeal to Court of Appeal-jurisdiction of Court of Appeal limited to statutory remit

Contract-illegal contracts-agreements contrary to public policy-maintenance and champerty-legislative review needed of whether doctrines of maintenance and champerty serve any useful social purpose today

The appellant appealed to the Grand Court against a decision of the Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The Planning Appeals Tribunal dismissed the National Trust”s application for a declaration that the Central Planning Authority had unlawfully delegated its discretion when granting planning permission to the respondent. The appellant then appealed to the Grand Court, which found (in proceedings reported at 2000 CILR 521) that the Central Planning Authority had a duty to reach an independent decision.

The respondent applied for an order that the appellant was not entitled to its costs of the proceedings, as it had a conditional fee agreement with its attorneys. The Grand Court (Sanderson, J.) awarded the appellant its costs, holding that the conditional fee agreement was not contrary to public policy. Those proceedings are reported at 2002 CILR 59.

On further appeal, the respondent submitted that, unlike in English law, the old torts of champerty and maintenance still applied in the Cayman Islands and the Grand Court had therefore erred in awarding the appellant its costs.

The appellant submitted that appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Grand Court in this matter was barred by (a) the Development...