6,967 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 4398 · pdb #3795

In the Matter of Trina Solar Limited – Company’s Application for Cross‑Examination Order - Judgment

FSD 0092/2017 (NSJ) · 2017-12-06

Cross‑examination under GCR O.38 r.2(3); limits in interlocutory injunctions; avoidance of mini‑trials; valuation evidence in s.238 context; credibility disputes at interlocutory stage; relevance to freezing order requirements; application of Donnelly, BCCI (No 6), Cyanamid

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
17-12-06-Trina-Solar-Limited-Companys-application-for-an-Order-for-the-Cross-Examination.pdf
1.21 MB · md5 24de133cee7f5334ecc763ced8a59a00
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/17-12-06-Trina-Solar-Limited-Companys-application-for-an-Order-for-the-Cross-Examination.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
49NALB8M5K9X1DFIHA0HA90DA30407D3FCB29127C89AE542043E.pdf
1.21 MB · md5 16f5c9b7a7014f5f3703e18bc17ed40c
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=751 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=4398 (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 10 Jun 2026 06:04 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #52690 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
olmocr · olmocr-2-7b-1025
1,079 chars in 207996 ms
LLM extraction
local · qwen3-next:80b
parsed first try · 57517 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number judgment_date court
Full metadata
Cause Number FSD 0092/2017 (NSJ)
Court CIGC (FSD)
Judge Segal J
Parties In the Matter of Trina Solar Limited – Company’s Application for Cross‑Examination Order - Judgment
Judgment Date 2017-12-06
Subject Cross‑examination under GCR O.38 r.2(3); limits in interlocutory injunctions; avoidance of mini‑trials; valuation evidence in s.238 context; credibility disputes at interlocutory stage; relevance to freezing order requirements; application of Donnelly, BCCI (No 6), Cyanamid
Filename (current) 17-12-06-Trina-Solar-Limited-Companys-application-for-an-Order-for-the-Cross-Examination.pdf
File MD5 24de133cee7f5334ecc763ced8a59a00
Source pipeline pdb
PDB record ID 3795
PDB URL https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/17-12-06-Trina-Solar-Limited-Companys-application-for-an-Order-for-the-Cross-Examination.pdf
Full text2 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 0092/2017 (NSJ)
In the Matter of Trina Solar Limited – Company’s Application for Cross‑Examination Order - Judgment
Before
Segal J
Judgment delivered 2017-12-06

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
that in the event that on the hearing

In the 28 September
concluded on the basis of publicly available
(g). Harneys submit that it is
(d). in particular, Harneys say
is not granted and that, given the
(b). the court should avoid turning such
"...The court is not justified in emb
purpose of the order by, for example
can be rebutted by the Company’s
of Mr Davidson. The Company’s Reply
(ii). this evidence goes directly to the
Price, makes her conclusions inherently unlikely to
(m). they accept that if cross examination
Commerce Intl. S.A. (No
provision in the CPR (CPR
made the Application for improper purposes but I
(a). he deals with the background to
does not consider that there is a real
hazard a guess as to where within
examination was limited to a narrower range

Find similar