McMillan J
<doc> 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 2 FINANCIAL SERVICIES DIVISION 3 4 5 IN CHAMBERS 6 BETWEEN: 7 8 AND: 9 10 11 OURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ICES DIVISION Cause No.: FSI KOSMOS CAPITAL PTY LTD PLAINT TURYA VENTURES LTD DEFEND 239 of 2018 (RMJ) IFF DAMI 12 13 14 15 Appearances: 16 17 18 19 20 Before: 21 22 Heard in 23 Court: 24 25 Judgment 26 Delivered: 27 28 29 Mr. Andrew Woodcock and Mr. Paul Keeble of Hamp the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Hamid Khanbhai of Campbells for the Defendant/ The Hon. Mr. Justice Robin McMillan 11 and 12 April 2019 23 May 2019 In & Company for Respondent 30 31 32 The relevance and use 33 to adduce an evidence 34 exercise of the dis- 35 36 37 38 39 HEADNOTE Application of paragraph 4 of the Financial Services Division's application for the existence of exceptional circumstances relating to the need to treat interlocutory high degree of care. on Guide - The need es - The general applications with a </doc>
<doc> 1 2 Introduction 3 4 1. In the course 5 ex parte Or 6 information a 7 Ltd ("the Pl 8 further applica JUDGMENT tion") to set aside an on to disclosure of Company's Capital PTY from this Court, a ndant's Counsel had 9 already comple- 10 2. The application 11 future evidence 12 3. I have conside 13 relevant mate 14 of both couns 15 4. Ultimately, the 16 Guide, which 17 which apply 18 here with the 19 states: letter his lengthy and detailed submissions. on related to an attempt by the Plaintiff at that advi- sion support of its case. ered very carefully the submissions of both counsel. I rials placed before me, and I must express gratitude to all in presenting their positions. bee matter comes down to the interpretation and appli- is the Financial Services Division Guide, and the cation of these applications and their length. I am p titions for lengthy interlocutory applications and ced point to adduce have considered the the candour and care cation of the Users' very clear principles articulatedly concerned at paragraph 4.2 it 20 "Leng 21 docum 22 longe 23 Court 24 5. Paragraph 4.3 25 4.3 Subject 26 Court 190529 the Matter of thy applications usually involve a greater volume of cents and more extensive and complex issues. They can lead time for exchange of evidence and preparation of then states: at to the GCR and any PD and to any further or ot- the timetable for lengthy applications shall be as follo- wing: FKD v Capital PTY Ltd v Turiya Ventures Ltd - FSD 239 of evidence and other accordingly require a add for reading by the her directions by the vs: 20 Judgment (RMJ) Page 2 of 5 </doc>
<doc> evidence in support must be filed and served at evidence in answer (if any) must be filed a thereafter; all evidence in reply (if any) must be filed a days thereafter. is timetable may be abridged or extended by agreement of the Court, save that no evidence delivered less than 5 clear business days before the hearing of the Court. Such leave will only be grant- ed with the application; and served within 21 and served within 14 at between the parties may be filed or ng date without the ated in exceptional 10 c/f 11 b/f 12 d/f 13 l/f 14 w/f 15 16 6. We have in 17 principle in p 18 slates, the m 19 obviously, sa 20 critical to the 21 and applied to 22 significance teststances; if a party wishes to file and serve eviden- tness days before the hearing date the Court may air taken out of the list and re-listed for hearing on any new final event the Court may, if it sees fit, make any conse- quential cost order(s) nce less than 5 clear ct that [the hearing] appropriate future date. rential cost order(s) s order(s).” some time, but the Mr Woodcock now ally, and I am not, then it was absolutely e adopted, adopted is evidence of great 23 7. I am told that 24 in question.” 25 own case and 26 Ultimately, I 27 have arisen w 28 190529 In the Matter of the evidence only crystallised a short period before that sworn (Hammond 3) but, nonetheless, the Plaintiff must be responsible for the steps which it takes or in- have to decide against this background whether ex- hereby that general rule can be abrogated in this case or cepted Affidavit of has carriage of its indeed, does not take. tional circumstances , at least, tempered. 2013 Judgment (RMJ Page 4 of 5 </doc>
<doc> 1 8. The difficulty. 2 general bar is 3 before the he 4 Plaintiff did 5 circumstance. 6 nonetheless, 7 8 9. In dealing w 9 agreed footwear. is, as we have discussed, that there is, in effect, a bar that no evidence may be filed or served less than five not abide by that and therefore the Plaintiff's is whether exceptional circumstances have arisen e granted. 10 if so appropriate. 11 necessary. 12 at it in abstract. 13 is no acceptable 14 arison. 15 16 10. The alternative 17 if the Court is 18 stage to grant 19 with that situ 20 exceptional or rate, deduce that there are or, indeed, are not exceptional undation, unfortunately, has not been provided in the terms, I would not be able to see my way to granting such proof, or no identifiable proof even, that exception proposition put forward by Mr Woodcock on behalf of that particular view as expressed then it would be s of that particular view as expressed then it would be at adjournment, subject to a costs regime, to enable and if, in our judgment, and hopefully to seek to satisfy the Court on circumstances have arisen. circumstance, that present case. Looking I leave because there I circumstances have of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff to deal a later occasion that 21 22 11. Looking at it 23 grant such a 24 circumstance. 25 time. As Mr 26 manageable at present apply. 27 e complexity of this case, and at the possible permissive adjournment, and I were then to rule that they, I would be allowing matters to continue for a very Khanbhai, on behalf of the Defendant, has point and efficacious alternative would be for the Plaintiff's and indeed, to start again with its tackle full
Judgment (RMJ) Page 4 of 5 </doc>
<doc> 1 choice it has 2 considers app- 3 4 12. I do not con- 5 number of 6 submissions 7 once again, to 8 this particular 9 circumstance. It is decided not to make and, of course, it is for it to make appropriate in the circumstances, subject to the applicable jurisdiction that an adjournment is in the interests of justi- cays reviewing and analyzing authorities, evidence, and them helpful and very frankly put forward by the Court is unable to see its way to granting an adjo- n the point. If litigants fail to abide by the time limit are required to be established and proved to the court. ce such choices as it principles of law. e. We have spent a and, indeed, legal but counsel - but, moment in respect of its then exceptional formation of the Court. 10 With great re- 11 exceptional 12 13 13. That is my de- 14 15 14. The Court w- 16 Users' Guide 17 the proper ex- 18 contrary to the petition. If the Court has to conclude that there is no material in the circumstances could be deduced. decision. It would only add that quite apart from the relevance as the Court would decline to admit the additional evi- dence of its discretion. To do otherwise would be in directs of justice. it presents from which d application of the erce in any event in light of disruptive and 19 20 21 THE HON.MR.JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT 22 190529 In the Matter STICE McMILAN RAND COURT of No. 06/2013 Capital PTY Ltd v Turiya Ventures Ltd - FSD 239 O 20 Judgment (RMJ) Page 5 of 5 </doc>