Georges JA, Rowe JA, Zacca JA
<doc> IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL GRAND COURT OF COLUMBARIA LTD. Appellant -and- RAMON E. BETETA Respondent EAL Civil) No. 11 of 2000 cause No. 638 of 1999 BEFORE: This was an inter Kellock I refusi Rt. Honourable Mr. Justice E. Zacca, President Rt. Honourable Mr. Justice T. Georges, J.A. and Rt. Honourable Mr. Justice I. Rowe, JA. d 10th 2000 Q.C. and Del Magner instructed by Ritch & Connolly for the Ap- C.C. and Shaun McCann instructed by Bruce Campbell & REASONS FOR JUDGMENT pellants. Company for the al a decision of his Court to file fresh evidence at after the close of application for le costs of these ap- the hearing of the appeal. After consideration we ar- the hearing of arguments that we had decided to have to adduce the fresh evidence and to grant the leave ications to be costs in the cause. announced shortly to accede to the to appeal - the </doc>
<doc> At the request of to adduce fresh Rule 17(2) of t states:- The parties we set out below our reasons for the deci- vidence. dence upon questions of fact, either The Court shall have full discretionary power to further examination in Court, by affidavit, or by de- take before an examiner or commissioner." sion to grant leave t of Appeal Law record by oral position This is broader in 59, rule 10. That sought to be int (emphasis suppl. These grounds ha- The substantive consequent on the substantive issue than the equivalent provision of the Supreme Court. If rule is, however, directed to the situation in which the produced "after trial or hearing of any cause or mat- ed). Such an application will be granted only on " tve been defined in Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. issued under consideration is one for leave to app- e refusal by the judge at first instance to grant re- for determination was procedural - namely the form fectice 1999, Order fresh evidence is. er on the merits" special grounds".
all of this Court such leave. The or the trial of the dispute between determination." Clearly where th- grounds must be prescribed in Lad- the parties. No issue on the merits of that ci- e dispute between the parties has been decided on the shown to justify the reopening of these issues. ly v. Marshall (supra) would then be considered. spite arose for e merits, special The conditions 2 </doc>
<doc> Where the issue discretion of the evidence is rele- be prejudiced by We were of the decided is in the area of procedural matters the pri- Court in exercising its powers under our local rule vant and whether the party against whom such evidence the granting of leave to adduce it. view that the evidence was relevant. As regards any p- rinciples guiding the is are whether the is tendered would prejudice which the grant of the app- remedied by grants remedy in reply. 3 </doc>