6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 4063 · pdb #1333

BC v EC - Judgment

D 0132/2008 · 2020-01-23

Family Law - Variation of a Final Ancillary Order, Applicable Principles, Child under a Disability. Family law; child maintenance; disabled dependents; ancillary relief variation

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
20-01-23_bc_v_ec.pdf
5.07 MB · md5 ef3539653be6df76c6f562cb2920387d
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/20-01-23_bc_v_ec.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
2GMP2PF39TOD1EB458D9619D3799E0D11ED2A74712094852DF5A.pdf
5.06 MB · md5 4d42afe38d20414a2b4d7317c0b0d942
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=1280 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=4063 (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 9 Jun 2026 14:04 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #51162 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
olmocr · olmocr-2-7b-1025
1,064 chars in 298944 ms
LLM extraction
local · qwen3-next:80b
parsed first try · 98224 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number judgment_date court
Full metadata
Full text12 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 — Family Division
Cause No. D 0132/2008
Between
BC
- v -
EC - Judgment
Before
Richards J
Judgment delivered 2020-01-23

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
INTRODUCTION

By Summons

The parties were married for some
“Where an order is made under section

On the 13
The Wife’s Position 13.
THE ISSUES

The
THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
necessary, any element of compensation is best
the matter de novo. What is required

Further, although not referred

The dicta in the

While I have due regard

The wife has no income
<table> <tr> <
Evidence of the Husband 36.
allocated to drivers on a first-come
amount). He explained that things changed when

He stated that he already

He explained that the loan

Counsel for the wife has
in high season when there are sometimes up
beach and excludes days when he is
alternative option of the Government school where the

Find similar