6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 2775 · pdb #1591

The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC - Ex Tempore Judgment

[2025] CIGC (Civ) 38 · G 0201 OF 2016 · 2025-Dec-05

Civil procedure - road traffic claim - strike out for want of prosecution, for contumelious breach of an order or as abuse of process - whether delays due to plaintiffs lack of funding are excusable - whether claim should be struck out

All PDF copies on file (2)

Every PDF we hold for this judgment is listed here, including legacy versions pulled from earlier upstream pipelines. Each carries a provenance note so the source of each copy is explicit.

PDB 20 May 2026 CURRENT
G0201201612052025MYERSHOWELL.pdf
500.11 KB · md5 59368aac897f8b66300f8a8348ce9b30
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/G0201201612052025MYERSHOWELL.pdf. | re-homed from jid=2707 (identity-slide repair 2026-06-12)
PDB 20 May 2026
25-09-02_the_family_global_godfathers_spc_et_al_-_ex_tempore_judgment.pdf
551.52 KB · md5 bcfef70fcecac98edc08d99ef73edc8e
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/25-09-02_the_family_global_godfathers_spc_et_al_-_ex_tempore_judgment.pdf.

Processing-run history (2)

Every time a PDF for this judgment has been put through the AI/OCR pipeline we record what we found. Lets us decide which PDFs to re-process when a better model lands.

HIGH 25 May 2026 01:52 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #2887 · quality 0.28
Text extraction
pymupdf
2,877 chars in 11 ms
LLM extraction
required retries · 105953 ms
⚠ Hard-case: run_failed
MEDIUM 25 May 2026 01:50 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #2875 · quality 0.77
Text extraction
pymupdf
2,877 chars in 9 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:3b-h
parsed first try · 22082 ms
Validation flags (4): cause_number neutral_citation judgment_date court
Full metadata
Full text8 paragraphs Download PDF

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands
[2025] CIGC (Civ) 38
Cause No. G 0201 OF 2016
The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC - Ex Tempore Judgment
Before
Birt JA, Goldring P, Martin JA
Judgment delivered 2025-Dec-05

CICA (Civil) The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC 1 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CICA (Civ) 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ON APPEAL FROM THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION CICA (CIVIL) APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2024 (CAUSE NO. FSD 36 OF 2022 (RPJ)) BETWEEN: (1) OUSSAMA AMMAR (2) FABULEO LIMITED (3) ALETHEIS, THE FIRST LIMITED Appellants/Defendants AND THE FAMILY (GLOBAL GODFATHERS) SPC (on its own behalf and on behalf of THE FAMILY (FREYA) SP, THE FAMILY (ODIN) SP, THE FAMILY (HNOSS) SP and THE FAMILY (VIDHAR) SP) Respondents/Plaintiffs Before: The Rt Hon Sir John Goldring, President The Hon John Martin KC, Justice of Appeal The Rt Sir Michael Birt, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellants did not attend. Date of Hearing: 02 September 2025 Judgment Delivered: 02 September 2025 Page 1 of 2 CACV2024-0027 2025-09-02 CACV2024-0027 2025-09-02 Digitally signed by Advance Performance Exponents Inc. Date: 2025.09.02 16:05:00 -05:00 Reason: Apex Certified Location: Apex CICA (Civil) The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC 2 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT THE PRESIDENT

This case has been listed as a renewed application before the full court for leave to appeal. I had previously refused such leave on paper. The proposed appeal results from the decision of Justice Raj Parker of the 16th of August 2024 and his subsequent judgment.

In short for reasons the judge set out in detail, he rejected the Appellants’ application to set aside an ex parte order made on the 15th March 2022 and acceded to the Respondents’ application to strike out the Appellants’ application as an abuse of process. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellants submit the judge was wrong in both respects.

The Appellants, who have dispensed with the services of their lawyers, have not responded to contact from the court, have filed no documents and are not present. However, we know they are aware of this hearing. Mr Wingrave, who had acted for the Respondents below, was present (as an observer) in court and indicated that the Appellants have made reference to this hearing in proceedings in France.

Some time before this hearing, I made an order that ‘documents…be filed [by the Appellants] by 21st August 2025. In the absence of any response by that date, the court would strike out the application.’ There was no such response. That alone would justify the court in dismissing this application. Moreover, as I have previously stated, it is my view the judge was entitled to reach the decision he did for the reasons he gave.

In the result, I would refuse this renewed application for leave to appeal. MARTIN JA:

I agree. BIRT JA:

And I also agree. Page 2 of 2 CACV2024-0027 2025-09-02 CACV2024-0027 2025-09-02

Find similar
Related public-register entries