7,436 judgments 29,782 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

Tower Corporation Ltd v Hadsphaltic International Ltd - Decision

G 0419/1984; G 0503/1985 · 1987-05-07

Admissibility of evidence under subpoena duces tecum; Public interest immunity; Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law; Hearsay rule considerations; Crown objection upheld

Full metadata
Full text17 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0419/1984; G 0503/1985
Between
Tower Corporation Ltd
- v -
Hadsphaltic International Ltd - Decision
Before
Summerfield CJ
Judgment delivered 1987-05-07

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE, SIR JOHN SUMMERFIELD

On April 27, 28, 29, 39, May 1 and 4 1987.

Cause No. 419 of 1984
Cause No. 503 of 1985

BETWEEN TOWER CORPORATION LIMITED PLAINTIFF
AND HADSPHALTIC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED DEFENDANT

BETWEEN HADSPHALTIC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PLAINTIFF
AND MAPLES AND CALDER DEFENDANT

R. Alberga Esq. Q.C. with him N. Clifford Esq. for Tower Corporation Ltd.
A. Hidden Esq. Q.C. with him I. Croxford Esq.
and D. Ritch Esq. for Hadsphaltic Int'l Ltd.
M. Harvey Esq. Q.C. with him A. Foster Esq. for Maples & Calder.
A. Smellie Esq. for the Attorney General intervening.

DECISION

Having refreshed my mind from my notes I feel that it would be in every one's best interest if I were to announce my decision and thereafter make known the reasons therefor as time permits. The decision does not turn on the resolution of disputed facts. It is matter of applying the law to facts as one sees them. The issue is simply whether the evidence identified in the subpoena duces tecum may or may not be adduced.

In my view, it may not.

In the first place, I take the view that the evidence sought to be adduced is protected by the doctrine of public interest immunity.

Secondly, the information is protected from disclosure by the
Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law subject, of course, to the provisions therein relating to the authorisation of the disclosure of confidential information.

I might add that I do not accept that the subpoena is tainted with illegality and, on that account, void or inoperable.

Further, I do not accept that the production of the document would offend the rule against hearsay.

Finally, in my view, the fact that the admission of evidence might lead to "an ever widening enquiry" which, in turn may attempt to impinge on protected matters is not, in itself, a ground for excluding evidence which would otherwise be admissible.

Accordingly, the objection by the Crown is upheld.

Sir John Summerfield

May 7, 1987.

Find similar