McMillan J
<doc> IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FINANCIAL SERVICE IN THE MATTER OF T AND IN THE MATTER In Chambers, 5th October S DIVISION CAUSE NO. HE COMPANIES LAW (2016 REVISION) OF CHINA BRANDING GROUP LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL October 2017 . 52 OF 2016 (RM3) - LIQUIDATION ) Appearances: Mr Jeremy Walton and Mr Matthew Goucke of Group Limited (in Office Before: Heard: Draft Judgment Circulated: Judgment Delivered: Ms Victoria King of Appleby for Mr Tony Bobulinski (the Ap- al Liguidation) (the Respondent) Mr Peter Kendall of Walkers for the Joint Official Liquidat- The Hon. Mr. Justice Robin McMillan 5th October 2017 1 Dec 2017 31st 2017 Headnote (Appellant/Applicant) Judges of China Branding Part III of Companies discovery on appeal - I The Appellant/ " 17126 RULING Winding Up Rules 2008 - Absence of provision for a verse of inherent jurisdiction of Court to address and re- RULING applicant's Summons Application in material part states as I " 1 For letter of China Branding Group Limited - FSD 52 of 2016 (RM3) cross-examination or direct a lacuna. follows: </doc>
<doc> 1. That the Joint do provide: a. details; paragr. ability b. any mi- the Ap- Compa- c. copies the Ap- return along with supporting documentation, of what Adam Roseman 7 of his Third Affirmation, affirmed on 8 September to continue to trade; as “considerable creditor pressure which threaten or record(s) of the Company’s board meeting held in Robert any proceeding into liquidation; of all communications between Adam Roseman and any of his entitlement under his loan and, in particular, in upon his loan and the effect of the maturity date in a liquidation) (Company) Roseman describes at nber 2017 in these bed (the Company’s) March 2016 at which Roche discussed the her parties relating to relation to the 2.5x his Note, and Pledge. Agreem- d. information their in- issue of e. copies Tim Go board 2016; f. records the ot- Inc. is case of Mr Jeff relevan- t. That the follow- cation about the assets (both tangible and intangible) his relation to the sale of the Company, security of the Appellant under the Pledge Agreement, of the communications between the Joint Official Liquidator, Jacob Fisch, Adam Roseman, Robert Roche, Shing Tao, and and of any and all communication between Shing Tao, Douglas Oscrow, individual s mentioned in paragraph 1(e) above regard- mutual waiver of the requirement of the Appellant. as of the actual documents for the sale of the Company. ing individuals do attend for cross-examination on their valuation and Mr Mark Dosker, their memoranda on matters by the Company and any, relevant to the 1720 or and the Company’s through to September as Oscrow and any of rding Remark Media, it’s signature to the affidavits (or in the s of California law) at the hearing of disregarded: a. The Ap- b. Mr Ada c. Mr Hug d. Mr Jeff e. Mr Mar 1720 the Appellant’s Summons dated 5 July 2017, failing wit- h Dickson ley Valle v. Dosker.” In Inter letter of China Branding Group Limited – FSD 52 of 2016 (RM) 2 </doc>
<doc> 2. Regarding a Companies Will cross-examine
Having consider narrow point of the Court of A ABN AMRO Ban indicated how, fill what would [2010 (2) CILR that cross-exa proof of debt appeal, this application arises in the con- trol of debt appeal case to which we have been referred (HSH Cayman in substantive matters, the Court may use its repeal case to which we have been referred (HSH Cayman in substantive matters, the Court may use its otherwise be a lacuna (In the Matter of Saad Investment 4221). Considering the nature of the matter under con- mination may well be appropriate in many instances, this ext of Part III of the s provision for either at this stage to one into account not only n Limited I GP Ltd. v learned Chief Justice his disjurisdiction to its Company Limited deration and the fact Court is of the view that, in this is paragraph 2 of
I say that both contradicts the circumstances that it would be indeed with th- tested their pr- that this is an that the Court experts have Application. stance, it would be appropriate to allow cross-examine the Summons dated 28 September (Summons). as a matter of jurisdiction, because I see nothing at scheme laid down by making this order, and as a matt- er of what appears to be a complex and difficult matter where of what appears to be a complex and difficult matter where assisted by having an opportunity to see these witnesses particular issue of expert witness evidence firmly in e particular issue of expert witness evidence firmly in positions of law (that is in respect of Mr Valle and Mr Dos has the tools available to make an informed and consider- unusual matter and that expert evidence is to be adduc- been, as appropriate, duly tested. In that respect I tion as requested in variance with or that re the Court considers cross-examined and, mind, to test and see ker). Therefore, given d decision after those grant the Summons 17128 </doc>
<doc> 5. I do not grant which we have has been sour between a na certainly does for comprehen- consider (as M 16 to go down dismiss those in the other respects, because I do not consider that it has been examining allows at large for the kind of comprehen- As I explained earlier in this hearing, there is a fitter and an action. A matter has perhaps a more summan- not, in the general course of things, provide for extensive discovery in relation to material which is relevant (Goucke has indicated) that it would be contrary to the the aspects of the Summons. procedure in a comprehensive way as I have been invited he procedural scheme invidental difference character to it, but it e pleadings and then to those pleadings. I scheme of CWR Order ed into fact. Therefore I Dated this 5th day of O The Hon. Justice Rol JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT in McMillan D COURT 1712 </doc>