T Ltd v Att Gen

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Schofield, J.)
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1994
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 09 November 1994

Grand Court

(Schofield, J.)

T LIMITED

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and PORT AUTHORITY

W. Helfretch, Crown Counsel, for the defendants;

M.S. Parkinson for the plaintiff.

Cases cited:

(1) Dextra Bank & Trust Co. Ltd. v. Bank of Jamaica, Supreme Court of Jamaica, Civil App. No. 61/94, unreported.

(2) Jefferson Ltd. v. Bhetcha, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 898; [1979] 2 All E.R. 1108.

(3) Thames Launches Ltd. v. Trinity House Corp., [1961] Ch. 197; [1961] 1 All E.R. 26; [1960] 2 Lloyd”s Rep. 407, dictum of Buckley J. applied.

Legislation construed:

Traffic Law (Revised) (Law 16 of 1973, revised 1986), s.12A, as substituted by the Traffic (Amendment) Law, 1993 (Law 14 of 1993), s.2:

‘(1) A person must not bring a large bus to the Islands without first obtaining the written approval of the Governor for the importation of the vehicle.

. . . .

(3) In this section “large bus” means a bus which-

(a) is more than 10 feet high. . . .’

Civil Procedure-related proceedings-stay of proceedings-court may stay proceedings to prevent undue prejudice to party or abuse of court”s process-if related civil and criminal proceedings depend on same issue, may order stay of one set of proceedings-to consider relative expense of trials, which proceedings started first and how far preparation advanced

The defendants sought an order to stay the proceedings brought against them by the plaintiff as being an abuse of the process of the court.

The plaintiff company imported three coaches which were seized and detained by the Customs Department on the ground that they exceeded the height restriction imposed by the Traffic Law, s.12A(3), and consequently could not be imported without the written approval of the Governor. The plaintiff denied that the coaches exceeded the height restriction and brought the present proceedings in the Grand Court, seeking their return by the defendants, together with damages and interest, and declarations that they had been lawfully imported and unlawfully seized and detained.

The plaintiff was subsequently charged in the Summary Court with an offence under the Customs Law, s.54, of evading the customs duty payable on the coaches. The defendants then sought the stay of the present Grand Court proceedings pending the outcome of the prosecution in the Summary Court.

They submitted that the question in both courts was whether the plaintiff had imported the coaches lawfully. If the Summary Court were to find that there had been an evasion of customs duty, it would necessarily establish that the coaches had been unlawfully imported and lawfully seized, and it would be an abuse of process to continue the proceedings in the Grand Court.

Held, ordering a stay of the criminal proceedings in the Summary Court:

The court had the jurisdiction to order a stay where it was just and convenient to do so, to prevent either undue prejudice to a party or an abuse of process. The Grand Court and the Summary Court were faced with substantially the same question since if either found that the coaches were lawfully imported, it would have established that they were unlawfully seized. Consequently, it would be proper to order the stay of one set of proceedings. In practical terms, it made little difference which were stayed but, since the Grand Court proceedings would involve greater expense and were already further advanced, and the Summary Court proceedings had been commenced much later, the interests of justice would be better served if the Summary Court proceedings were stayed until those in the Grand Court had been determined (page 283, line 5 – page 284, line 12).

SCHOFIELD, J.: On November 26th, 1993, T Ltd. (the plaintiff)
endeavoured to import three coaches into Grand Cayman. These coaches
45	were seized by

...