Smellie CJ
<doc> IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS AND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS SERVICES DIVISION SD 54 OF 2009 AHMAD HAMAD ALGOSAIBI AND BROTHERS COMPANY AND BROTHERS COMPANY LIMITED (Hereinafter called "the Maples Defendants") MAAN AL-SANEA AND OTHERS (Hereinafter called "the Maples Defendants") 601-11 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS IN CHAMBER THE 28TH DAY BEFORE THE APPEARANCE
The first binding
Herein is OF APRIL 2011 SESSION, ANTHONY SMELLIE, CHIEF JUSTICE ES: Mr. David Butler of Appleby for Mr. Al Sanea Peter Hayden and Mr. Richards of Moura RULING principle of stare decisis is that a decision made by precedent in respect of the matter that it decides. Therefore, in question for our case, Mr. Butler has urged that the effect of the Court of Appeal's decision on judgment, is that there is to be no stay of the pro- they should continue notwithstanding Mr. Al Sanea the Privy Council and with all the consequences to sequences would include his obligation to file any dis- s imposed by the Rules of the Court. as accepted and in the appeal from proceedings and that it's then proposed at would follow. defence within the Page 1 of 3 </doc>
<doc> 3. Given that exercise the proc- would p- Court of
That was I still co- meaning and effect of the Court of Appeal's decision, any purported by me of a jurisdiction to allow Mr. Al Sanea's applic- tion generally, pending his proposed appeal to eedings mainly and unavoidably involve ruling contrary to the the very same matter. conclusion that I reached in my judgment of 16th that I can now discern no plausible is that and so no reasonable prospect of success in the appeal to the Court of Appeal against my judgment of 16th Feb- free with Mr. Hayden that the proposed appeal would be of the Court. That conclusion is further buttressed by the application by Mr. Al Sanea for leave to appeal again of Appeal and which is now pending before the Privy Council, on that a decision must be reached as to whether or was wrong in refusing the stay of proceedings. A further argument to the how proposed to February 2011. be an abuse of the e fact that there is ast the decision of Council. It is in not the Court of her attempt to re- engage t- of process
For all th- 16th Feb-
Notwith- filed bef- the Court of Appeal over the very same issues would be e reasons, the application for leave to appeal against ary 2011 is refused. standing that Mr. Al Sanea's current application for leave re his application to the Privy Council for leave, his plainly an abuse of my judgment of have to appeal was decision to persist Page 2 of 3 </doc>
<doc> in this a Court. unreason paid by Hon. Anthony Chief Justice application I also regard as being in itself an abuse of It should not have been brought and argued. It has been very the Plaintiff to be I so order. Delivered orally Issued on July 20 2011 on May 20 2011 Page 3 of 3 </doc>