Sagicor Gen Ins v Crawford Adjusters

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Judge: (Henderson, J.)
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2008
• Date: 09 December 2008

Grand Court

(Henderson, J.)

SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (CAYMAN) LIMITED and PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN No. 151

and

CRAWFORD ADJUSTERS (CAYMAN) LIMITED and SIX OTHERS

H. Robinson and S. Dickson for the first and second plaintiffs;

M. Todd, Q.C., Ms. J. Beer and G. Hampson for the first to third defendants;

T. Lowe, Q.C., A. Mold and C.J. McDuff for the fourth to seventh defendants.

Case cited:

(1) Bonotto v. Boccaletti, 2001 CILR 292, referred to.

Legislation construed:

Grand Court Rules 1995, O.62, r.18(1):

‘Work done by foreign lawyers may be recovered on taxation under these rules on the standard basis provided that . . .

(b) the work was done after he was admitted.’

O.62, r.18(7): The relevant terms of this sub-rule are set out at para. 4.

Practice Direction cited:

Practice Direction No. 1/2001, Guidelines Relating to the Taxation of Costs.

Attorneys-at-Law-obligations to court-honesty-responsibility to refrain from making detrimental allegations of fraud and dishonesty without reasonable expectation of proof-last-minute abandonment of claim may indicate no such expectation exists and justify award of indemnity costs

Attorneys-at-Law-remuneration-costs-foreign lawyers-costs of foreign lawyers incurred before admission to Cayman Bar may be awarded on indemnity basis in exceptional circumstances, e.g. costs in respect of defending allegations of fraud and conspiracy without merit, when allegations abandoned at last minute-Grand Court Rules, O.62, r.18(1)(b), only prohibits award if costs on standard basis and court may deviate from Practice Direction No. 1/2001 (containing similar prohibition) in interests of justice

Civil Procedure-costs-indemnity basis-may award indemnity costs, including costs of foreign lawyers incurred before admission to Cayman Bar, in exceptional circumstances, e.g. costs in respect of defending allegations of fraud and conspiracy without merit, when allegations abandoned at last minute

The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendants for fraud and conspiracy.

The second plaintiffs owned a building development which was damaged by Hurricane Ivan. The first plaintiff was their insurer. For two years, they alleged that the defendants, all of whom were associated in some way with the clean-up and reinstatement of the proprietors” development, had fraudulently conspired against them.

In preparation for the trial, the fourth to seventh defendants employed two UK-based lawyers who did not...