Ruling – Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Limited et al v Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Limited et al Cause Nos. 78 of 2006 & 573 of 2008 14.01.10 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN 2 3 CAUSE NO: 78 OF 2006 4 BETWEEN: 5 (1) SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (CAYMAN) LIMITED 6 (2) THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 151 7 (KNOWN AS WINDSOR VILLAGE) 8 Plaintiffs 9 10 -AND- 11 12 (1) CRAWFORD ADJUSTERS (CAYMAN) LIMITED 13 (2) BOULD PATERSON LIMITED 14 (3) ALASTAIR PATERSON 15 (4) HURLSTONE LIMITED 16 (5) HURLSTONE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED 17 (6) JOHN HURLSTONE 18 (7) ROBERT HURLSTONE 19 Defendants 20 -AND- 21 22 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 23 CAUSE NO. 573 of 2008 24 BETWEEN: 25 (1) HURLSTONE LIMITED 26 (2) HURLSTONE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED 27 (3) JOHN HURLSTONE 28 (4) ROBERT HURLSTONE 29 Plaintiffs 30 -AND- 31 32 (1) SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (CAYMAN) LIMITED 33 (2) THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 151 34 (KNOWN AS WINDSOR VILLAGE) 35 Defendants 36 Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Henderson 37 38 Appearances: Mr. Michael Roberts Q.C. instructed by Mr. Nick Dunne of 39 Walkers for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs 40 Mr. Thomas Lowe, Q.C. instructed by Mr. Christopher J. McDuff 41 of Thorp Alberga for the 4th to 7th Defendants 42 Mr. Anthony Bueno Q.C. instructed by Mr. Graham Hampson for 43 the 1st and 3rd Defendants 44 45 46 Heard on 18th December 2009 47 48 Ruling – Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Limited et al v Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Limited et al Cause Nos. 78 of 2006 & 573 of 2008 14.01.10 2 RULING 1 2 3
At the conclusion of final argument in this lengthy trial, the defendants have 4 applied to re-amend their pleadings. The first, second and third defendants wish 5 to re-amend their counterclaim by the addition of: 6 7 (1) an allegation of damage to the reputations of these defendants flowing 8 from an article in the Cayman Compass describing the original allegations 9 (by Sagicor and Windsor Village) of fraud and conspiracy; 10 11 (2) an allegation that the article mentioned above was “planted” by Frank 12 Delessio, an executive of Sagicor, with the object of destroying the 13 reputations and businesses of the defendants; 14 15 (3) references to the “frequent expression” by Mr. Delessio of his dislike of 16 and hostility towards Alastair Patterson; 17 18 (4) the attribution of a statement to Sagicor’s chief executive officer that it 19 had the means to take its fraud and conspiracy case “the full distance… to 20 put your boys [i.e. the Hurlstones] out of business”; 21 22 (5) a reference to the obtaining of a mareva injunction against the Hurlstone 23 parties and the attempt to obtain one against defendants 1 to 3; 24 25 (6) an allegation that the respective experts have agreed on the amount of 26 special damages (subject to a ruling on liability) in the amount of CI$1.3 27 million; 28 Ruling – Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Limited et al v Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Limited et al Cause Nos. 78 of 2006 & 573 of 2008 14.01.10 3 (7) an allegation that defendants 1, 2 and 3 suffered damage, including special 1 damage, resulting from loss of business arising from publicity given to the 2 original fraud and conspiracy action; 3 4 (8) in the prayer for relief, a claim to the agreed special damages, to interest 5 and to costs. 6 7
Defendants 4 to 7, the Hurlstone parties, seek leave to re-amend their statement of 8 claim to include some, but not all, of the additional matters referred to above. 9 10
As with any request for an amendment, the overriding concern is whether it will 11 cause prejudice. I am satisfied that no prejudice will arise from any of these 12 requested changes. In every case, the “new” allegations have been the subject of 13 extensive evidence and argument. There is no reason to think that any of these 14 amendments come as a surprise to Sagicor or Windsor Village; the newly pleaded 15 allegations serve only to bring within the pleading matters of fact which have 16 already been examined extensively and without objection from the plaintiffs. 17 18
Sagicor and Windsor Village argue that leave to amend should not be granted as 19 the claim, in its amended form, would have no reasonable prospect of success. I 20 do not think it would be fruitful or even proper to undertake that analysis at this 21 time. The trial is at an end, or virtually so, and assessing the requested 22 amendments as if the trial had not yet started would be a wholly artificial and 23 pointless exercise. For these brief reasons, the two applications to amend are 24 allowed. 25 Ruling – Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Limited et al v Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Limited et al Cause Nos. 78 of 2006 & 573 of 2008 14.01.10 4 1
The plaintiffs have requested a right to make further submissions on some of the 2 matters referred to in the amendments. Although I am unconvinced of the need 3 for it, I will grant leave to the plaintiffs to file a further written argument within 4 14 days. This argument must be confined to matters referred to in the most recent 5 amendments and may not exceed 15 pages in length. The defendants have had a 6 more than ample opportunity to argue their case and are not permitted to make 7 any further argument. The plaintiffs’ request for a direction that submissions 8 made by the defendants on the merits of the case which were interspersed with 9 their written submissions seeking leave to amend should be ignored is refused; 10 those submissions will be taken into account. 11 12
The amendments have not imposed any additional costs upon these plaintiffs and 13 are unlikely to do so; I make no order as to the costs of the application for leave to 14 amend. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dated: 14th January 2010 21 The Hon. Mr. Justice Alexander Henderson 22 Judge of the Grand Court 23