6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 3919 · pdb #3975

In the Matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd v The Registrar of Lands and Ors - Ruling on White Dove Summons

[2020] CIGC (FSD) 143 · FSD 0143/2019 (NSJ) · 2020-10-01

Application for attorneys to come off record; corporate litigant self‑representation; exceptional circumstances threshold

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
20-10-01-Cayman-Shores-Development-Ltd-v-The-Registrar-of-Lands-and-3-Ors.pdf
436.49 KB · md5 386d8546f3ea76778d79703a9fc9bc37
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/20-10-01-Cayman-Shores-Development-Ltd-v-The-Registrar-of-Lands-and-3-Ors.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
2NJFPG0MSHKL1F114322FC44BD769EB355CF78E3A137EB83B7F4.pdf
436.49 KB · md5 386d8546f3ea76778d79703a9fc9bc37
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=1376 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=3919 (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 24 May 2026 05:26 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #2217 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
pymupdf
4,260 chars in 13 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:small-h
parsed first try · 24643 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number neutral_citation court
Full metadata
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
[2020] CIGC (FSD) 143
Cause No. FSD 0143/2019 (NSJ)
Between
In the Matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd
- v -
The Registrar of Lands and Ors - Ruling on White Dove Summons
Before
Segal J
Judgment delivered 2020-10-01

201001 In the Matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd v. The Registrar of Lands and Ors –FSD 143 of 2019 NSJ – Ruling on White Dove Summons
1
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION
FSD CAUSE NO 143 OF 2019 (NSJ)
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTERED LAND LAW
BETWEEN:
(1)
CAYMAN SHORES DEVELOPMENT LTD.
(2)
PALM SUNSHINE LTD.
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
(1)
THE REGISTER OF LANDS
(2)
THE PROPRIETORS, STRATA PLAN NO. 79 (Known as LIONS COURT)
(3)
THE PROPRIETORS, STRATA PLAN NO. 147 (Known as REGENTS COURT)
(4)
THE PROPRIETORS, STRATA PLAN NO. 215 (Known as KINGS COURT)
(5)
THE BRITANNIA PROPRIETORS (being the persons, whose names and addresses are
set out in Section B of Schedule 1 to the Re-Amended Originating Summons)
DEFENDANTS

RULING ON WHITE DOVE’S SUMMONS

1.
This is my ruling on the application by White Dove Ltd (White Dove) for an order that their
current attorneys, Nelsons, be permitted to come off the record, and that their sole director and
100% shareholder be permitted to appear on behalf of White Dove.
2.
I have read and carefully considered White Dove’s summons, the First Affidavit of Mr Prasad,
the skeleton submissions filed on behalf of White Dove by Nelsons and the authorities referred

201001 In the Matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd v. The Registrar of Lands and Ors –FSD 143 of 2019 NSJ – Ruling on White Dove Summons
2
to therein. I have also noted that the Plaintiffs, the Walker Defendants and the First Defendant
have confirmed that they neither oppose nor support and do not intend to take a position on
White Dove’s application (although the Plaintiff’s attorneys, Appleby, have in their letter to the
Court dated 29 September noted that there is authority against the order sought and drawn the
Court’s attention to the relevant cases).
3.
While I sympathise with White Dove’s financial problems and Mr Prasad’s wish to avoid
incurring additional legal expense, I have concluded that White Dove’s application must be
dismissed.
4.
I can summarise my reasons briefly.
5.
It is clear that in order to justify the order sought White Dove must show exceptional
circumstances. In my view it has failed to do so. In Radford v Freeway Classics [1994] 1 BCLC
446 at 451 Sir Thomas Bingham MR quoted the following passage from the judgment of Forbes
J below:
“It is quite clear in my judgment that the only circumstances in which those sort of
exceptional matters might arise are where there are substantial grounds for believing
that some application or step in the proceedings could not be brought or put fairly
before the court for some reason or other unless somebody on behalf of the company
had an opportunity to speak for the company. In very rare circumstances the court might
be able to recognise that it was necessary to allow a limited amount of address to the
court to be made by for example a director of the company and would take steps
appropriate to the circumstances to allow this to be done.”
6.
It is clear both from the pleadings and from Mr Prasad’s First Affidavit that White Dove has
adopted the same defences and position as that taken by the Walkers Defendants and that the
interests of White Dove and the Walkers Defendants are “completely aligned” (see [4(v)]). As
a result, Mr Prasad says that it is not his intention to make any oral submissions at trial but
rather he intends to “defer to and adopt those of the Walkers Defendants’ counsel.” (see [4(vi)]).
In these circumstances, there is no need, in the interests of justice, for someone to be able to
appear and make submissions on behalf of White Dove. There are therefore no grounds for
believing that an application or step in the proceedings, or White Dove’s defence and

201001 In the Matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd v. The Registrar of Lands and Ors –FSD 143 of 2019 NSJ – Ruling on White Dove Summons
3
arguments, cannot be brought or put fairly before the court unless Mr Prasad has an opportunity
to speak for the company at the trial.
7.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Mr Justice Segal
Judge of the Grand Court, Cayman Islands
1 October 2020

Find similar