Re Fraser (D)
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Henderson, Ag. J.) |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 2003 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 14 April 2003 |
(Henderson, Ag. J.)
A.J. Walters for the applicants;
Ms. C. Richards, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
(1) Euro Bank Corp., In re, 2002 CILR 497, applied.
(2) Finsbury Bank & Trust Co. v. Att. Gen., 1996 CILR 349, referred to.
(3) McCorkle, In re, 1998 CILR N–2, considered.
(4) Piper, Re, [1999] 4 All E.R. 473, considered.
(5) U.S. Govt. v. Montgomery, [2001] 1 W.L.R. 196; [2001] 1 All E.R. 815, applied.
Grand Court Rules, 1995 (Revised), O.62, r.4(2): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at para. 8.
r.4(5): ‘If the Court in the exercise of its discretion sees fit to make any order as to the costs of any proceedings, the Court shall order the costs to follow the event, except when it appears to the Court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.’
Judicature Law (1995 Revision) (Law 11 of 1975, revised 1995), s.24(1):
‘In every case in which any party recovers judgment against another, such party shall have judgment for the court fees payable under this Law or any rule which may be requisite to obtain such judgment.’
Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law (2001 Revision) (Law 15 of 1996, revised 2001), s.5(6):
‘The standard of proof required to determine any question arising under this Law as to-
(a) whether a person has benefited as mentioned in paragraph (b)(i); of subsection (2); or
(b) the amount to be recovered in his case by virtue of section 6,
shall be that applicable in civil proceedings.’
s.10(5): ‘A restraint order-
(a) may be made only on an application by the Attorney-General;
(b) may be made on an ex parte application to a judge in chambers; and
(c) shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.’
Criminal Procedure-proceeds of criminal conduct-costs-application for restraint order (or variation) not matter of general importance in public interest-Attorney General making application therefore ordinary litigant and liable to pay costs of successful respondent
The applicants were named in a restraint order under the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law, as account holders and trustees in relation to assets of the defendant. They applied for a variation of the order, denying that they held any assets in which the defendant owned a beneficial interest. The Attorney General eventually consented to the variation and the applicants sought their costs, pursuant to the Grand Court Rules, O.62.
The Attorney General submitted that (a) O.62 was not intended to apply to such proceedings; and (b) the court should exercise its discretion not to make the award sought, because the application for the restraint order (and the challenge to its variation) were of general importance in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
An APPLICATION for JUDICIAL REVIEW and GCR O.53 BETWEEN: (1) Maples Corporate Services Ltd (2) Maplesfs Ltd Plaintiffs v Cayman Islands Monetary Authority Defendant
...deferential to the Executive was already inspiring a more modern approach to costs in public proceedings in this Court. In In re Fraser [2003] CILR 196, Henderson J (Acting) was understandably reluctant to disapprove of the principle articulated by the Court of Appeal in Finsbury Bank & Tru......
-
An Application for Judicial Review and GCR O.53 Between: (1) Maples Corporate Services Ltd (2) Maplesfs Ltd Plaintiffs v Cayman Islands Monetary Authority Defendant
...deferential to the Executive was already inspiring a more modern approach to costs in public proceedings in this Court. In In re Fraser [2003] CILR 196, Henderson J (Acting) was understandably reluctant to disapprove of the principle articulated by the Court of Appeal in Finsbury Bank & Tru......