Doyle J
220808 In the matter of Limited Admission Application – Judgment – ATT 121 of 2022 (DDJ)
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CAUSE NO. ATT 121 of 2022 (DDJ)
IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT (2022 REVISION)
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE LIMITED ADMISSION
OF JEREMY EDWARD GOLDRING QC AS AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF THE
CAYMAN ISLANDS IN GRAND COURT FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION CAUSE
NO: 74 of 2022 (DDJ)
Appearances:
Mark Dowds of Carey Olsen for the Applicant
Jeremy Edward Goldring QC
Before:
The Hon. Justice David Doyle
Heard:
8 August 2022
Ex tempore
Judgment delivered:
8 August 2022
Transcript
of ex tempore Judgment
circulated:
15 August 2022
Transcript
of ex tempore
Judgment approved:
15 August 2022
220808 In the matter of Limited Admission Application – Judgment – ATT 121 of 2022 (DDJ)
HEADNOTE
Determination of Limited Admission Application – plea to local attorneys to file such
applications in good time and to specify the grounds of the application in the application
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.
I shall now deliver a judgment in respect of ATT 121 of 2022. I have considered the
application for limited admission of Jeremy Edward Goldring QC in respect of FSD 74
of 2022 (DDJ) (the “Application”) and I have considered the affidavits in support of
the Application. As I have tried to make plain in the past applications for limited
admission are not mere formalities or rubber-stamping exercises. Proper respect must
be given to the local jurisdiction and the strict requirements that must be satisfied before
such an application can be considered and, if appropriate, granted. Moreover they
should be made on a timely basis otherwise great inconvenience is caused to court
administration and other matters are potentially adversely impacted upon. I make
another plea to the local attorneys to file these applications in good time.
Summary
2.
For the reasons which I will state in this judgment I have decided to grant the
Application.
The relevant law and procedure
3.
No skeleton argument or authorities were provided to me in respect of the Application.
In respect of the relevant law and procedure I have however considered my judgment
in Limited Admission of David Stewart Mumford QC (9 March 2022), section 4 of the
Legal Practitioners Act (2022 Revision) (“Section 4”) and the Practice Direction 4 of
2012 (“Practice Direction”). In Mumford I endeavoured to review the relevant law and
220808 In the matter of Limited Admission Application – Judgment – ATT 121 of 2022 (DDJ)
procedure and I do not set it all out again in this short judgment but I have full regard
to it.
Determination of the Application
4.
Having considered the relevant law and procedure and the facts of this case I now turn
to the determination of the Application presently before me.
5.
I am satisfied in the circumstances of the Application presently before me that the
requirements of Section 4 and the Practice Direction have been duly complied with,
although the application was left very late in the day.
6.
The grounds of the Application were not specified in the Application itself or in the
supporting documentation. In Mumford (9 March 2022) at paragraph 9(4) (d) I stated:
“For future reference and from my perspective the concise grounds of the
application for limited admission should ideally be set out in the application
itself and the detail can be provided in the supporting affidavits and, depending
on the circumstances of the case, the relevant pleadings exhibited or at least a
summary of them provided …”
The attorney for the applicant this morning has outlined the grounds as follows:
(1)
high value of the matter;
(2)
complex points of law; and
(3)
desirability and efficiency of one leading counsel for all dissenters and the
avoidance of potential conflicts.
220808 In the matter of Limited Admission Application – Judgment – ATT 121 of 2022 (DDJ)
7.
Paragraph 6(d) of the Practice Direction provides that “unless the Judge hearing the
Application is already very familiar with the specified suit or matter concerned [the
attorney’s affidavit should contain] a sufficiently detailed summary thereof to enable
the Judge to exercise his discretion in all the circumstances as to whether or not to admit
the Applicant for the purposes of appearing, acting or advising in that specified suit or
matter.” Fortunately in this particular case I had an opportunity over the weekend to
read into the matter because certain applications are before the court this Thursday.
8.
I have considered the various relevant factors including the nature and complexity of
the case. There can be no doubt in respect of the applicant QC’s qualifications, good
character, professional conduct, expertise and experience. The applicant QC has
obtained a work permit. I note also that the local attorneys will remain involved and
that the case will primarily be conducted from the Cayman Islands. I note that the
clients wish to be advised and represented by the applicant QC alongside local attorneys.
9.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to exercise my
discretion in favour of granting the Application and I grant it for the brief reasons
contained in this judgment.
10.
The applicant QC is to sign the register of admitted attorneys as soon as is practicable
and I note the undertaking at paragraph 12 of the applicant QC’s affidavit sworn earlier
today. The applicant QC, of course, is required to comply with all the professional
duties and obligations and be subject to the professional discipline of a generally
admitted attorney at law and as an officer of this court.
THE HON. JUSTICE DAVID DOYLE
JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT