6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 3040 · pdb #4427

In the matter of Trezevant v Trezevant - Judgment (costs)

FSD 0050/2023 (DDJ) · 2024-10-14

Determination of various costs issues. Civil Procedure; 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
24-10-14-In-the-matter-of-Trezevant-v-Trezevant-Judgment-Costs.pdf
234.58 KB · md5 139f1af2f03bb9558dacc21a410f7043
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/24-10-14-In-the-matter-of-Trezevant-v-Trezevant-Judgment-Costs.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
FSD0050202310142024COSTS.pdf
234.58 KB · md5 139f1af2f03bb9558dacc21a410f7043
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=2278 from the now-frozen judicial.ky CSV pipeline (Box.com signed-URL AJAX action=dl_bfile). Kept on disk for reference; the PDB release is the canonical current version. | re-homed from jid=3040 (identity-slide repair 2026-06-12)

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 02:32 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #3003 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
pymupdf
3,358 chars in 16 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:3b-h
parsed first try · 21172 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number judgment_date court
Full metadata
Cause Number FSD 0050/2023 (DDJ)
Court CIGC (FSD)
Judge Doyle J
Parties In the matter of Trezevant v Trezevant - Judgment (costs)
Judgment Date 2024-10-14
Subject Determination of various costs issues. Civil Procedure; Costs
Filename (current) 24-10-14-In-the-matter-of-Trezevant-v-Trezevant-Judgment-Costs.pdf
File MD5 139f1af2f03bb9558dacc21a410f7043
Source pipeline pdb
PDB record ID 4427
PDB URL https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/24-10-14-In-the-matter-of-Trezevant-v-Trezevant-Judgment-Costs.pdf
Full text3 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 — Financial Services Division
Cause No. FSD 0050/2023 (DDJ)
Between
In the matter of Trezevant
- v -
Trezevant - Judgment (costs)
Before
Doyle J
Judgment delivered 2024-10-14

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FINANCIAL SERVICES DMSION CAUSE NO. FSD 50 OF 2023 (DDJ) IN THE MATTER OF THE FRAUDULENT DISPOSITIONS ACT (1996 REVISION) BETWEEN: (1) KISHA DEAN TREZEVANT (2) SEVEN MILE BEACH HOTEL DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD Plaintiffs AND (1) STANLEY H. TREZEVANT III (2) R&W CAYMAN PROPERTIES, LTD THE REGISTRAR OF LANDS Before: Heard: Draft Judgment circulated: Judgment delivered: The Hon. Justice David Doyle On the papers 9 October 2024 11 October 2024 Determination of various costs issues Judgment Introduction Defendants Interested Party 1. On 29 August 2024 I delivered a judgment and by order made on 13 September 2024 ordered the 2 4 IO 14 In the matter of Trezevant v Trezevant - FSD 5 0 of 202 3 (DDJ) - Judgment (costs) Page 1 of3 Page 1 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11 Page 1 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11 Digitally signed by Advance Performance Exponents Inc Date: 2024.10.16 12:40:21 -05:00 Reason: Apex Certified Location: Apex 2. I have considered: (1) the First Defendant's costs submissions dated 20 September 2024 brought to my attention by email after 3pm on 20 September 2024; (2) the Second Defendant's costs submissions dated 20 September 2024 brought to my attention by email on 3 October 2024; (3) the Plaintiffs' costs submissions dated 20 September 2024 brought to my attention by email on 3 October 2024; 3. The Plaint1ffs say that the bulk of the Plaintiffs' costs were incurred in relation to the Defendants' split trial application which was moved at the hearing and on which the Plaintiffs were successful. The Plaintiffs offered, they say in the interests of compromise, to accept an award of 60% of their costs (although they estimate 75% of their costs were incurred in dealing with the split trial application) but that offer was rebuffed. 4. The Defendants say that all the costs of the Summons should be costs in the cause. Determination 5. I note that the Summons to progress matters was that of the Second Defendant rather than the Plaintiffs or the First Defendant. 6. The Summons enabled matters to progress and for sensible directions to be made towards trial for the benefit of all parties. 241014 In the ma tterofTrezevantv Trezevant-FSD 50 o/2023 (DDJ)-Judgment (costs) Page 2 of3 parties to file and serve concise written submissions on costs before 3pm on 20 September 2024 and indicated that the costs position may be determined on the papers without the need for a further hearing. Submissions Page 2 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11 Page 2 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11 9. In my judgment, justice is best achieved in this case by the court making an order that the costs of the Summons and the directions hearing be costs in the cause and that is the order I make. 10. Counsel to file within 7 days of the delivery of this judgment a draft order reflecting my determinations on costs. THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DAVID DOYLE JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT 241014 In the matter of Trezevant v Trezevant-FSD 50 of 2023 (DDJ)-Judgment (costs) Page 3 of3

It is correct that the Plaintiffs were successful in resisting the application for a split trial. However, in other respects the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful.

I have considered all the submissions placed before the court. Page 3 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11 Page 3 of 3 FSD2023-0050 2024-10-11

Find similar