Douglas J
1 IN CHAMBERS
2
3 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
4
5 Cause No. 613 of 1997
6
7
8 BETWEEN: Thompson Shipping Co. Ltd
9
10
11
12 AND: The Port Authority of the Cayman Islands
13
14
15 DEFENDANT
16
17 APPEARANCES:
18 Pierre Lamontagne Q.C. instructed by Karin Thompson of Karin Thompson and Co.
19 Ian Croxford Q.C. instructed by Cherry Bridges of Ritch and Conolly.
20
21
22
23
24 RULING
25
26 By its summons dated 4th August 1997, the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant be restrained and enjoined from giving any effect to their alleged decision to cancel the permit issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff.
27
28
29 At the hearing of the plaintiff's application for leave to apply for a Judicial Review, a stay as applied for above was granted to 20th August and extended by this court until the completion of the hearing of this application.
30
31
32
33
34
35 This application follows a ruling in Cause 367 of 1997 made 2nd August, 1997 by this court refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff restraining the defendant from compelling the plaintiff to remove its two cranes from the George Town Port area. In that ruling the court took
three factors into consideration, and following the principles of the American Cyanamid case ruled as follows:
(1) That the affidavit evidence failed to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in its claim for a personal injunction;
(2) That damages would be an adequate remedy; and
(3) That the ground of the injunction could lead to confusion.
The essence of the plaintiff was that there exists as contractual licence for the cranes to remain on the Port, having found that it is very unlikely that any such licence exists.
Accordingly, the granting of the order now applied for would be an ineffective one and that without a licence the plaintiff could be prohibited from entering the Port and operating the cranes.
The court is also reluctant to order an injunction against a public body - Minister of Affairs Trade Industry v S Ltd (1991) E All E.R. 65.
The issue of bias has been argued at length. This is not very relevant to this application, however, I find no evidence of bias on the part of the Authority, whose decision can only be tainted by the bias of one or more of its members. There is not evidence to this effect.
Dated this 26th day of August 1997