Ruling – Tritton Development Fund Ltd. v. Fortis Bank (Cayman) Limited etc. Cause No. 104 of 2005 25.06.08
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
Cause No: 104/05
BETWEEN:
TRITTON DEVELOPMENT FUND LTD.
Plaintiff
AND:
FORTIS BANK (CAYMAN) LIMITED
(FORMERLY MEESPIERSON (CAYMAN)
LIMITED MEESPIERSON MANAGEMENT
(CAYMAN) LIMITED MEESPIERSON
NOMINEES (CAYMAN) LIMITED
Defendant
Appearances:
Mr. Kenneth Farrow of Mourant du Feu & Jeune
for the plaintiff
Mr. David Railton Q.C. instructed by
Mr. Jonathan Tarboton of Appleby for the defendants
Before:
Hon. Justice Henderson
Heard:
June 25, 2008
RULING
The plaintiff asks for leave to adduce evidence from one additional expert “in the
discipline of fund management and investment advice.”
I have come to the conclusion that the proffered expert evidence is unlikely to be of real
assistance to the court and is probably inadmissible.
The evidence, if admitted, would go to the standard of care expected of a director of a
fund management company in the Cayman Islands and of an investment advisor here.
Ruling – Tritton Development Fund Ltd. v. Fortis Bank (Cayman) Limited etc. Cause No. 104 of 2005 25.06.08
The plaintiff has said that it wishes the proposed expert to testify about the “steps” a
competent director would be expected to take and the advice a competent investment
advisor would be expected to give in the circumstances of the transactions occurring here
in June and December, 1999.
Neither directors nor investment advisors belong to what is properly described as a
“profession.” There are no objective standards or canons of conduct governing how they
discharge their duties. The law of fiduciary obligations does impose certain overarching
duties on directors and investment advisors. I must, of course, be the judge of these and
expert evidence on that subject is not admissible. Once one descends from the general to
the particular and asks questions like: “what steps would a competent director take in
these circumstances?” or “what advice would a competent investment advisor give in
these circumstances?” the lack of any objective standard against which to measure
conduct makes the evidence of an expert of little value. Everything depends on the
circumstances including the experience and expertise of the person involved. No expert
would be able to describe a general standard of conduct and competence which dictates
that certain steps be taken or advice given. The most the expert could say, ultimately, is:
“I am an experienced director (or investment adviser) and I would have done it
Ruling – Tritton Development Fund Ltd. v. Fortis Bank (Cayman) Limited etc. Cause No. 104 of 2005 25.06.08
this way.” That sort of evidence is not admissible. I also find myself in agreement with
Mr. Railton that the proposed expert evidence is unlikely to assist the court.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2008
Henderson, J.
Judge of the Grand Court