Jones J
<doc> 1 IN THE GRAND CO
2 FINANCIAL SERV
3
4
5
6
7 The Honourable Mr
8 In Chambers, 12th
9
10 IN THE MATTER
11 AND IN THE MAT
12
JRT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
ICES DIVISION
Cause No. F
and 14th February 2013
OFFICE COMPANIES LAW (2012 REVISION)
TER OF TRIKONA ADVISORS LIMITED
SD 18 of 2012 (AJJ)
15
16 BETWEEN:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appearances:
26
Mr. Ross McDonough
27
28
Mr. Anthony Akiwui
29
30
31
32
33
(1) ARC CAPITAL LLC
(2) HAIDA INVESTMENTS LTD
-And-
ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED
and Mr. Gray Cowan of Campbells on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Mr. Guy Cowan of Campbells on behalf of the Respondi
nts, as Shares Walker Hersant on behalf of the Respondent
Retitioners
spondent
stitioners
nt
34
35
36 1. Order 62 of
37
t.2(4). Part
38
which these
39
the form of
40
where the C
or more shall
41
should be pr
42
the costs of
RULING ON COSTS
The Grand Court Rules applies to liquidation proceedings of Order 24 of the Companies Winding Up Rules. In rules will be applied to liquidation proceedings, which adversarial inter parties litigation. In the case of a court has directed that it be treated as an inter parties pre-holders, as it did in this case, the general rule is that out of the assets of the company and the unsucces-
sional party, such costs to be taxed on the
1 of 3
Judges. See GCR O.1,
rescribes the way in
do not normally take
tributory's petition
seeding between two
at none of the costs
ful party should pay
landlord basis unless </doc>
<doc> 1 agreed. See
2 up order, co-
3 indemnity be
4 oppose the c
5 indemnity ce
6 costs to be
7 apply for inc
8 submission,
9 compliance
10 February 20
11
12 It was not co-
13 O.24, r.8(2)(b). On 31 January, immediately after I prosecuted for the Petitioners sought an order for costs on the standard basis but I think this should always be made on notice. I therefore made
said by the Respondent, subject to giving the Petitioner's summons, setting out the direction and, having read counsel's written 3rd heard oral argument on 12th February.
disputed that GCR O.62, r.4(1) applies to liquidatio-
nounced the winding
to be taxed on the
e Respondent could
that applications for
e the usual order for
ris an opportunity to
reported by a written
defend an application in
submission dated 7th
proceedings. CWR
13 O.24, r.8(2)
14 exclude the
15 winding up
16
17 "the Court may
18 satisfied that its
19 order relates in
20
21 Mr McDono-
22 the entire pr-
23 was 'improper'
24
25 3. It was ap-
26 unreported
27 addressed the
28 Rule 11(2) in
29 to the hearing) merely sets out the general rule and, when read with regard to make an inter partes order for the costs to be taxed on the indemnity basis. Rule 4(1) makes it
paying party has conducted the proceedings, or that part of the properly, unreasonably or negligently."
high put his case on the basis that the Respondent con- proceeding, which lasted almost exactly one whole year, and "unreasonable" within the meaning of this rule.
trol from his written submission that Mr McDonoughe did in Sadik v. Investcorp Bank BSC (1981) undertaking and effect of Rule 4(1) and its interplay with wasted costs. Copies of this ruling were sent to me, explaining what is meant by conducting a proceeding rule 8(4), does not
basis of a contributory's provide that -
proceedings to which the
duty basis only if it is
uttered his defence of
, in a manner which
y had not read my
y opinion in which I
with the provisions of
to both counsel prior
ing "improperly" in
30 the following:
31
32
33
(1) In my
conducted the
34
case, that
35
which attracts
36
legitimate basis
of the process
37
38
In Sadik the
39
equally to a
40
defendant to
41
when he kind-
42
ly be said to have been
in all the circumstances of
if the process in a way
he knows that he has no
terror motive is an abuse
, the analysis applies
never improper for a
s a positive defence,
g improperly. It may </doc>
<doc> 1 be said that
2 abusing the p
3
4 In my judgri
5 of Trikona,
6 groundeds, whi
7 McDonough
8 defended in
Rule 4(1) a
9 Petitions’
10
11
there was an overwhelming case for make a winding
nevertheless, Mr Kaira defended the petition relentless.
ch were unsupported by credible evidence. For the
its written submission, I have come to the conclusion
and it should express the Court’s disapproval by means of taxed on the indemnity basis.
the ulterior motive is
g up order in respect
sly on a number of
reasons given in Mr
that this petition was
thin the meaning of
in order that the
12 13 DATED 14TH FEBRUARY 2013
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 The Hon. Mr. Justi
21 JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT
JARY 2013
e Andrew J. Jones QC
RAND COURT
3 of 3 </doc>