Henderson J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CAUSE NO. 296 OF 1994
BETWEEN:
BRIDGE TRUST COMPANY LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND
(1) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
(2) EVEN WAHR-HANSEN
(3) COMPASS TRUST COMPANY LIMITED
(5)-(73) AALL TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION LTD & OTHERS
Defendants
Before: Hon. Justice Henderson
Heard: January 19, 2007
JUDGMENT
The third defendant, Compass Trust Company Limited, appeals from a decision of the Taxing Officer given on August 7, 2006 denying to Compass an extension of time within which to commence a taxation.
A proceeding for the taxation of costs must be commenced within three months after the judgment is filed or within three months after the right to taxation arose, whichever is the later: Grand Court Rules, Order 62, Rule 28 (2). The Taxing Officer may summarily dismiss any application for taxation which is made out of time: Grand Court Rules, Order 62, Rule 28 (3).
By order pronounced July 31, 2003 and filed August 7, 2003, Compass Trust was awarded its costs of an application to be paid by the second defendant, Even Wahr-Hansen, in any event of the cause. By order pronounced August 28th, 2003 and filed September 4th, 2003, Compass Trust was awarded its costs of another application, to be paid by Mr. Wahr-Hansen in any event of the cause.
The case was settled; a final order in the usual terms was pronounced on November 26, 2003 and filed December 3rd, 2003. Nothing was done by Compass Trust to pursue its entitlement to costs until well after the three month deadline. Because of an oversight, no step was taken by Compass Trust to recover its costs until September 12, 2005.
After the respondent made it clear in correspondence that he would not agree to an extension of time for the taxation, an application was finally made to the Taxing Officer (in July, 2006) for an extension of time. The extension was refused, without reasons. Order 62 Rule 29 (6) provides that a Taxing Officer shall not give reasons for any decision.
In opposing the application for an extension, Mr. Wahr-Hansen argued that he would suffer prejudice from the delay if the Taxing Officer embarked upon a taxation proceeding three years after the events in question. The Taxing Officer (by letter dated July 20th, 2006) asked for particulars of the prejudice, demonstrating an awareness that
this was an important element to be considered. A number of grounds of prejudice were advanced, which I need not repeat here.
The Taxing Officer was also told that the respondent was awarded certain costs to be paid by the applicant. The respondent, also, took no steps to claim his costs. They could have been set off against the costs awarded to the applicant.
The decision to grant or refuse an extension of time is pre-eminently a matter of discretion. In general, this court will interfere with the exercise of a Taxing Officer’s discretion only when it is clear that he has erred in law or in principle: see Gorfin v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1958] 1WLR 314 (Court of Appeal). Such occasions are rare.
The record before me demonstrates that the Taxing Officer was alive to the critical issue (prejudice). In light of what was said to him by the respondent, his decision that the respondent would be prejudiced by the granting of an extension of time was within the realm of reasonableness. With that conclusion, I would not interfere.
The appeal from the Taxing Officer is dismissed.
Dated this 19th day of January, 2007
Henderson, J.
Henderson, J.
Judge of the Grand Court