Wahr-Hansen v Compass

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Henderson, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 September 2008
• Date: 12 September 2008
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO. 350 OF 2004
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Between:

Even Wahr-Hansen Et Al

Plaintiffs

and

Compass Trust Co Limited Et Al

Defendants

[2008] CIGC J0915-1

Before:

Hon. Justice Henderson

CAUSE NO. 350 OF 2004

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

Appearances:

Mr. Stephen Rubin QC and Mr. Justin Higgo instructed by David Collier of Charles Adams Ritchie & Duckworth for the Plaintiffs

Mr. Carlos Pimentel and Mr. Michael Loberg of Appleby For the 1 ^st to 13 ^th Defendants

RULING

1 The Plaintiffs, in their skeleton brief prepared for this pre-trial review, have asked for a direction that the First to Thirteenth Defendants disclose:

‘6.1. written communications, notes of oral communications, and attendance notes of discussions between the Defendants, Mr. Robert Slatter, Mr. Colin Shaw and/or Mr. Neil Timms relating to the retainer of Mr. Shaw and Mr. Timms in June 1992 by the Fourth Defendant (‘AT&B’) to investigate the affairs of the Aall Foundation, including all documents relating to the creation of the so-called ‘Slatter memorandum’ and all other documentation recording communications between Mr. Shaw and/or Mr. Timms and any third parties which relate to the instructions and/or advice prior to the relevant meetings of AT&B commencing on September 1992;’

2 One of the issues in this complex litigation will be the honesty, or lack thereof, of the Defendants who were acting as directors of Aall Trust and Banking Corporation in 1992. There is an allegation that various assets of the Aall Foundation were converted illegally and that the directors of AT&B did not make any honest and sincere attempt to retrieve those assets then. Matters suggesting that action should be taken were brought to their attention.

3 Two witness statements have been delivered to the Plaintiffs. The usual course is that the statements would stand as the direct evidence of these witnesses at the trial.

4 The witness statement of Erik Monsen addresses AT&B's relationship with Mr. Colin Shaw, a solicitor at Maples and Calder here in the Cayman Islands. Mr. Monsen says in part:

‘It was June when Colin Shaw called me. He said that while digging around on the question of ownership he'd seen a number of memos from Slatter that suggested problems with the way the Foundation had been run. He wanted my blessing to investigate matters further and report back to me. I told him to go right ahead. If things weren't right or needed sorting out I wanted to know about it and if my father owed the foundation money I wanted it paid back.

‘It was Colin who was responsible for setting up the AT&B meetings in the Fall and getting Slatter to put together his infamous memorandum. He said we needed to sit down and put the whole history of the Foundation under a microscope and decide what needed to be done.

‘That's what we tried to do in the long AT&B Board meetings that we held between September 1992 and January 1993.’

5 In that short passage one can see reference to matters which ordinarily would be privileged. Mr. Shaw reports to Mensen (who was a director of the client, AT&B) that Shaw had seen a number of memos suggesting problems with the way the Foundation had been run. Shaw then goes on to ask for authority to do certain things and Monsen instructs him to do them. Those are all privileged communications. The brief and somewhat conclusory nature of the evidence does not change the fact that privileged communications are being revealed intentionally.

6 The witness...