6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 2808 · pdb #3261

Raiffeisen International Bank AG v Scully Royalty Ltd and Others - Time Extension for Defence

[2026] CICA (Civ) 4 · CICA (CIVIL) APPEAL NO. 0008 OF 2025 · 2026-Feb-03

Costs following dismissal of appeal; whether indemnity costs warranted; recovery of fees of foreign junior counsel not temporarily admitted; interim payment on account of costs; treatment of costs of costs submissions; award of interest on costs

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
CICACIV0008202502032026ALJOMAIHIGCFKES.pdf
734.62 KB · md5 6185ae0b7f4a4632d0e9f18a60980101
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/CICACIV0008202502032026ALJOMAIHIGCFKES.pdf. | re-homed from jid=2677 (identity-slide repair 2026-06-12)
PDB 20 May 2026
25-07-18-Raiffeisen-Bank-International-AG-v-Scully-Royalty-Ltd-and-Others-Time-Extension.pdf
219.25 KB · md5 ec8c97f29b63c03d1007809e13acc66d
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/25-07-18-Raiffeisen-Bank-International-AG-v-Scully-Royalty-Ltd-and-Others-Time-Extension.pdf.

Processing-run history (1)

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.

MEDIUM 25 May 2026 00:39 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #2671 · quality 0.77
Text extraction
pymupdf
4,620 chars in 6 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:3b-h
parsed first try · 29142 ms
Validation flags (4): cause_number neutral_citation judgment_date court
Full metadata
Full text14 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 Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands
[2026] CICA (Civ) 4
Cause No. CICA (CIVIL) APPEAL NO. 0008 OF 2025
Between
Raiffeisen International Bank AG
- v -
Scully Royalty Ltd and Others - Time Extension for Defence
Before
Parker J
Judgment delivered 2026-Feb-03

1 250718 – FSD 162 of 2019 (RPJ) Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Scully Royalty Ltd and Others – Time Extension D9 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (FSD) 67 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION CAUSE NO. FSD 162 OF 2019 (RPJ) BETWEEN: RAIFFEISEN INTERNATIONAL BANK AG (a company incorporated in Austria) Respondent / Plaintiff AND (1) SCULLY ROYALTY LTD (a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands) First Defendant (2) LTC PHARMA (INT) LTD. (a company incorporated in the Marshall Islands) Second Defendant (3) MERKANTI HOLDING P.L.C. (formerly MFC Holding Ltd, a company incorporated in Malta) Third Defendant (4) 1178936 B.C. LTD. (a company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada) Fourth Defendant (5) GARDAWORLD, CN. LTD. (a company incorporated in the Marshall Islands) Fifth Defendant (6) 1128349 B.C. LTD. (a company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada) Sixth Defendant (7) IEM SERVICES CO. LTD. (a company incorporated in the Marshall Islands) Seventh Defendant (8) LTCM ASSETS PRIVATE LIMITED (a company incorporated in Liberia) Eighth Defendant (9) MICHAEL JOHN SMITH Applicant / Ninth Defendant Before: The Hon. Justice Raj Parker Heard: Written submissions and other materials (on the papers) Page 1 of 3 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18 Digitally signed by Advance Performance Exponents Inc. Date: 2025.07.31 15:58:44 -05:00 Reason: Apex Certified Location: Apex 2 250718 – FSD 162 of 2019 (RPJ) Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Scully Royalty Ltd and Others – Time Extension D9 Extension of time for defence-discretion-Overriding Objective.

Mr Smith (D9) seeks an extension of time to file his defence until 29 August 2025.

RBI argues that he should be ordered to file his defence within short order of the determination of his summons seeking an extension, and by no later than 18 July 2025. The summons has been determined on the papers.

The Court has reviewed the affidavit evidence of Mr Bhavesh Patel (Patel 1) and Mr Jordan Constable (Constable 2) as well as the written submissions of the parties.

The Court has decided that the just extension in all the circumstances is until 15 August

This will be a final extension.

In coming to this decision the Court recognises that D9 has had a considerable amount of time to file his defence given the extension that was agreed to 20 June 2025 and there must be no exploitation of Court deadlines.

His defence was originally due by 15 April 2025. He subsequently changed attorneys.

Two days before his defence was due under the terms of the agreed extension, his new attorneys informed RBI that they had been newly instructed and sought a further extension.

The Court considers that the 15th of August 2025 is a reasonable extension which will not unduly impact the CMC or disrupt the proceedings, balancing the prejudice between the parties.

D9's Defence and RBI's Reply need to be filed in good time ahead of the CMC on 25 September 2025.

D9 has been engaging with the merits of RBI's claim since 2019 in which he swore 5 detailed affidavits on behalf of certain of the corporate defendants, two of which he adopted on his own behalf once he had been joined to the proceedings. In his application to contest his joinder and the Court's jurisdiction it is reasonable to infer that he engaged with the merits of RBI's claim and much work would have been undertaken for his defence1.

The Court is not minded to allow D9’s case to proceed at a different pace to that of the other corporate defendants. There is to be one CMC at which all parties are to participate. The Overriding Objective requires cases to be resolved fairly, expeditiously and economically.

The Court considers that the 15th of August final deadline is a reasonable extension to allow D9 and his new attorneys to put together a defence which has been in the making for years, even allowing for the fact that the new attorneys may be ‘starting from 1 Constable 2 §9 Page 2 of 3 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18 3 250718 – FSD 162 of 2019 (RPJ) Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Scully Royalty Ltd and Others – Time Extension D9 scratch’ and have not been assisted by his previous attorneys and the complexity and length of these proceedings. _______________________ The Hon. Justice Parker Judge of the Grand Court 18 July 2025 Page 3 of 3 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18 FSD0162/2019 2025-07-18

Find similar