Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN 2 Cause No: 278/05 3 127 &128/06 4 5 BETWEEN: 6 EMBASSY INVESTMENTS LIMITED 7 8 PLAINTIFF 9 AND: 10
ASCOT CORPORATE NAME LIMITED (FOR 11 AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL 12 OTHER MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 1414 AT 13 LLOYD’S) 14
FARADAY CAPITAL LIMITED (FOR AND ON 15 BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER 16 MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 435 AT 17 LLOYD’S) 18
SIMON KING (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 19 HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF 20 SYNDICATE 2010 AT LLOYD’S) 21
WÜRTTEMBERGISCHE VERSICHERUNG 22 AG 23
ECCLESIASTICAL INSURANCE COMPANY 24 LIMITED 25
HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY 26
SIMON WHITE (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 27 HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF 28 SYNDICATE 1200 AT LLOYD’S) 29
CHRISTINE DANDRIDGE (FOR AND ON 30 BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER 31 MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 609 AT 32 LLOYD’S) 33
TALBOT 2002 UNDERWRITING CAPITAL 34 LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND 35 ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 36 1183 AT LLOYD’S) 37
CATLIN SYNDICATES LTD (FOR AND ON 38 BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER 39 MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 2003 AT 40 LLOYD’S) 41
BRIT UW LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 42 ITSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF 43 SYNDICATE 2987 AT LLOYD’S) 44
WELLINGTON UNDERWRITING AGENCY 45 LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND 46 ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 47 2020 AT LLOYD’S) 48 49 DEFENDANTS 50 51 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 2 of 14 CONSOLIDATED WITH 1 Cause No: 98/06 2 3 BETWEEN: 4 EMBASSY INVESTMENTS LIMITED 5 6 PLAINTIFF 7 8 AND: 9
SIMON WHITE (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 10 HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF 11 SYNDICATE 1200 AT LLOYD’S) 12
CHRISTINE DANDRIDGE (FOR AND ON 13 BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER 14 MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 609 AT 15 LLOYD’S) 16
TALBOT 2002 UNDERWRITING CAPITAL 17 LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND 18 ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 19 1183 AT LLOYD’S) 20
CATLIN SYNDICATES LTD (FOR AND ON 21 BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER 22 MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 2003 AT 23 LLOYD’S) 24
BRIT UW LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 25 ITSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF 26 SYNDICATE 2987 AT LLOYD’S) 27
WELLINGTON UNDERWRITING AGENCY 28 LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND 29 ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE 30 2020 AT LLOYD’S) 31 32 PLAINTIFFS 33 34 AND: 35
EMBASSY INVESTMENTS LIMITED 36
BEACH SUITES INVESTMENTS LIMITED 37
HYATT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 38 39 DEFENDANTS 40 41 APPEARANCES: Mr. Jeremy Walton and Ms. Marit Hudson of 42 Appleby for the Sixth Defendant/Applicant 43 44 Mr. Tim Richards of Mourant Ozannes for the 45 Plaintiff/Respondent 46 47 Before: Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin 48 Heard: 2nd May 2011 49 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 3 of 14 JUDGMENT 1 2 3 4
On the 3rd March 2011 the Sixth Defendant filed an Application pursuant to 5 GCR O.19 r.7 and r.8 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for an 6 Order in the following terms: 7 i. That interlocutory judgment on the Sixth Defendant’s 8 Counterclaim be entered against the Plaintiff in default of 9 defence to Counterclaim, with damages to be assessed and costs 10 (including the costs of such assessment) to be taxed on an 11 indemnity basis. 12 ii. That damages be assessed before a Judge of the Grand Court, 13 the appointment for such assessment to be made upon the 14 application of the Sixth Defendant to the Clerk of the Court 15 within fourteen (14) days of the date Judgment is entered in 16 accordance with paragraph i., above, (or within such other 17 period as the Court deems appropriate). 18 iii. That at least seven (7) days before the date of such appointment 19 the Sixth Defendant shall serve notice of the same on the 20 Plaintiff. 21 iv. That there should be such further directions in relation to the 22 assessment of damages as the Court deems appropriate. 23 v. That a permanent and final injunction be granted against the 24 Plaintiff forthwith in the following terms – “a permanent 25 injunction is hereby granted to restrain the Plaintiff (Embassy 26 Investments Limited) whether by its directors, officers, servants, 27 agents or otherwise, from howsoever purposing the words 28 complained of by the Sixth Defendant (Houston Casualty 29 Company) in its Counterclaim or any similar words defamatory 30 of the Sixth Defendant. 31 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 4 of 14
The Sixth Defendant’s application is supported by two affidavits of Mr. Clive 1 Jackson (“Mr. Jackson”) dated the 4th March 2011 and the 15th April 2011, 2 (although I have also read the Fourth Affidavit of Mr. Jackson dated the 17th 3 March 2011) together with affidavits of Mr. Eckerd McField (“Mr. 4 McField”), dated the 19th January 2011 and the 18th April 2011. 5
On the 28th April 2011 Mourant Ozannes filed a Notice of Change of 6 Attorneys at Law pursuant to GCR O.67 r.1 to appear on behalf of the 7 Plaintiff. 8
The Sixth Defendant’s Counterclaim against the Plaintiff was filed on the 17th 9 December 2010 and claimed for (1) General damages for libel, (2) Exemplary 10 damages for libel, (3) An injunction to restrain the Plaintiff, whether by its 11 directors, officers, servants, agents or otherwise, from howsoever publishing 12 the said or any similar words defamatory of the Sixth Defendant as the 13 Plaintiff, (4) Costs on an indemnity basis. 14
Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Richards, submits that a Defence to the Sixth 15 Defendant’s Counterclaim was served in draft on the Sixth Defendant’s 16 attorneys on the 28th April 2011, but not filed. Mr. Richards submits that it is 17 a good Defence, and that he and leading counsel for the Sixth Defendant who 18 settled the Counterclaim prepared it as quickly as they could and in little more 19 than a month from receiving the Plaintiff’s instructions in the middle of 20 March 2011. Mr. Richards maintained that the Defence served on Appleby 21 was prepared and settled as quickly as it could be in all the circumstances. 22 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 5 of 14
The Plaintiff’s Re-amended Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim came 1 under cover of a letter from the Plaintiff’s attorneys dated the 28th April 2011 2 in which the Plaintiff maintains that the Plaintiff is entitled to serve a Defence 3 to the Counterclaim as a result of GCR O.18 r.3, and that the Defence should 4 be incorporated into the Reply, rather than being served as a separate 5 pleading. 6
Furthermore, in Court, the Plaintiff through its counsel confirmed that it is in 7 the Plaintiff’s interest to take the matter further and offered to pay the costs 8 occasioned by the late service on a standard basis. The Plaintiff’s counsel 9 further submits that it is not in a situation where the Plaintiff is in default. 10 Position of Mr. Bhatia 11
The Plaintiff maintains through its counsel that Mr. Asif Bhatia (“Mr. 12 Bhatia”) is neither the “alter ego” nor does he speak on behalf of the Plaintiff. 13 Indeed counsel for the Plaintiff states that Mr. Bhatia has not been an 14 employee of the Plaintiff Company since April 2010. Furthermore, counsel 15 for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff has written to Mr. Bhatia confirming 16 that he is not authorised to act on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, although 17 the Plaintiff has not provided the Sixth Defendant’s attorneys or the Court 18 with a copy of the letter. 19
The Court takes note that Mr. Bhatia filed his First Affidavit in these 20 proceedings on the 9th September 2005 in which he confirmed that he was 21 “the major ultimate beneficial owner and senior vice president of the 22 Plaintiff.” In total Mr. Bhatia has filed six affidavits on behalf of the Plaintiff 23 in these proceedings. 24 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 6 of 14
On the 5th July 2010 the London arbitrator agreed between the parties, Mr. 1 Steven Males Q.C., stated at paragraph 15 of his Judgment: 2 “In his words the “major ultimate beneficial owner” of Embassy, and 3 also its Senior Vice President is Mr. Asif Bhatia. Mr. Bhatia is also an 4 employer of Embassy. The company’s decision making is carried out by 5 a board of directors of which he is not a member. In practice, however, 6 the directors act upon Mr. Bhatia’s recommendations, at least until there 7 is a very strong reason not to do so. So far as the events of this 8 arbitration are concerned, the decisions made by the directors and the 9 correspondence which they sent were, in every case, made or sent with 10 the approval or upon the recommendation of Mr. Bhatia.” 11 12
There is no evidence before this Court that Mr. Bhatia is no longer the “major 13 ultimate beneficial owner” of the Plaintiff. 14
The Court’s attention is drawn to a series of emails from Mr. Bhatia in which 15 he is purporting to represent the Plaintiff to very senior members of the 16 Government of the Cayman Islands and other public figures, between 2006 17 and 2010, which are exhibited to Mr. Jackson’s Third Affidavit. 18
Indeed, although the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ letter dated the 24th March 2011 19 states that Mr. Bhatia is not authorised to speak on behalf of Embassy, in 20 December 2010 the Sixth Defendant’s attorneys received copies of Mr. 21 Bhatia’s emails from a corporate director of the Plaintiff which the Sixth 22 Defendant submits contained defamatory statements to public figures and to 23 the Cayman media. 24
What causes this Court some concern is that Mr. Bhatia appears to admit that 25 the publication of these allegedly defamatory statements in the Cayman media 26 is part of a deliberate attempt to force the Sixth Defendant to settle the 27 Plaintiff’s claims. Indeed, in his email dated 2nd August 2010, Mr. Bhatia 28 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 7 of 14 states: “Hopefully the increasing public pressure on [the Defendant] [which is 1 looking increasingly exposed] will result in them settling very soon due to the 2 clear benefits of the greater openness and transparency which has resulted 3 from a somewhat free and open press in Cayman…” 4
This Court finds some force in the Sixth Defendant’s counsel’s submission 5 that the Plaintiff has continued to attack the Sixth Defendant in 6 correspondence to public figures in the United Kingdom, the Cayman Islands 7 and the European Union rather than prosecute its claim against the Sixth 8 Defendant in these proceedings. Indeed, as late as the 13th April 2011 Mr. 9 Bhatia wrote emails to the European Commissioner and senior government 10 figures in the United Kingdom which supports the submission from counsel 11 for the Sixth Defendant that the “Plaintiff has continued and has ramped up 12 its defamatory communications to third parties”. Indeed the Sixth Defendant, 13 through its counsel, complains of the Plaintiff carrying out a “campaign of 14 vilification of the Sixth Defendant” through its scandalous allegations 15 contained in voluminous emails to the media and to third parties, whilst at the 16 same time taking no steps to prosecute its claim in these proceedings. 17
Accordingly, the Sixth Defendant’s counsel submits that this “scandalous and 18 contumelious conduct by the Plaintiff is an abuse of the process of this Court” 19 causing the Sixth Defendant to issue an application for the Plaintiff’s claim to 20 be struck out. 21
Having reviewed the content of the emails there is a clear indication that Mr. 22 Bhatia is purporting to speak for the Plaintiff and his aim is to damage the 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 8 of 14 Sixth Defendant in the eyes of important government figures in the United 1 Kingdom, the Cayman Islands and Europe. 2
Mr. Bhatia may no longer be an employee, but there is no suggestion that he 3 was not speaking for the Plaintiff until receipt of the letter from the Plaintiff’s 4 Cayman attorneys of the 24th March 2011, some three months after the Sixth 5 Defendant’s Counterclaim was filed in this Court. Furthermore, there is no 6 evidence before this Court that the recipients of Mr. Bhatia’s emails 7 understand that Mr. Bhatia does not speak for the Plaintiff. In fact, if 8 anything, the contrary would appear to be the case. 9 Relevant Chronology 10
On the 27th July 2010 the Sixth Defendant served a Notice of Intention to 11 Proceed on the Plaintiff. From a review of the evidence before this Court the 12 Plaintiff did not respond to this step taken by the Sixth Defendant. 13
On the 26th September 2010 the Sixth Defendant issued and filed its 14 Summons for leave to re-re-amend its Defence by introducing the 15 Counterclaim with a return date of 14th December 2010. 16
On the 13th October 2010 the attorneys for the Sixth Defendant wrote to the 17 Plaintiff and served a sealed copy of its Summons dated the 29th September 18 2010 to re-re-amend its Defence by introducing the Counterclaim and the 19 second affidavit of Mr. Jackson. To give the Plaintiff an opportunity to 20 consider whether it wished to consent to the Application, the Sixth 21 Defendant’s attorneys, Appleby, confirmed that they would not seek a hearing 22 date earlier than the 27th October 2010, being fourteen (14) days from service 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 9 of 14 of its letter, with the Summons on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not respond 1 to Appleby’s letter or to the service of the Sixth Defendant’s Summons. 2 Accordingly, the return date of the 14th December 2010 stood. 3
On the 14th December 2010, the day of the hearing of the Sixth Defendant’s 4 Summons, Ms. Letitia Herviou (“Ms. Herviou”), a director of Basel CDS 5 Limited, which is the corporate director of the Plaintiff, wrote to the Sixth 6 Defendant’s attorneys stating, inter alia, that the Plaintiff had expected the 7 Sixth Defendant to withdraw its application. 8
Mr. Richards has informed the Court that Ms. Herviou is still a director of 9 Basel CDS Limited. Accordingly, it is clear that Ms. Herviou, and therefore 10 the Plaintiff, were fully aware of the Sixth Defendant’s application to 11 introduce the Counterclaim. 12
On the 14th December 2010 counsel for the Sixth Defendant appeared before 13 the learned Chief Justice, but there was no appearance on behalf of the 14 Plaintiff. At this hearing the Sixth Defendant was given leave by the learned 15 Chief Justice to re-re-amend its Defence to introduce a Counterclaim pursuant 16 to GCR O.18 r.9 and GCR O.20 r.5. 17
On the 20th December 2010 the Plaintiff was served with a sealed copy of the 18 Sixth Defendant’s re-re-amended Defence and Counterclaim dated the 17th 19 December 2010 and a sealed copy of the Order of the learned Chief Justice 20 dated the 14th December 2010. The Plaintiff did not respond to this Order. 21
Under the Grand Court Rules a Defendant who gives notice of intention to 22 defend an action must, unless the Court gives leave to the contrary, serve a 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 10 of 14 Defence on the Plaintiff before the expiration of fourteen (14) days after 1 acknowledging service of the Writ or after the Statement of Claim is served 2 on him, whichever is later. Accordingly, under the Grand Court Rules the 3 Plaintiff was required to file its Defence to the Sixth Defendant’s 4 Counterclaim on or before the 4th January 2011. 5
The Plaintiff did not file any Notice of Intention to Defend, nor did it file any 6 defence up to the 3rd March 2011 when the Sixth Defendant issued its 7 Summons. Indeed, as of the 2nd May 2011 no Defence or any Notice of 8 Intention to Defend had been filed by the Plaintiff. 9
The Sixth Defendant confirms at paragraph 21 of Mr. Jackson’s Third 10 Affidavit that the Defendant had failed to respond to: 11 “(1) Service of the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to proceed; (2) 12 Service of the Sixth Defendant’s Summons to Summons to re-re-amend 13 the defence by introducing the Counterclaim; and (3) Service of the re- 14 re-amended Defence and Counterclaim.” 15
Mr. Jackson avers in his Third Affidavit that the Plaintiff had taken no step in 16 these proceedings since February 2008. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson avers at 17 paragraph 21 of his Third Affidavit that the Plaintiff’s failure clearly indicates 18 that the Plaintiff had chosen not to take any action in relation to the 19 Defendant’s Counterclaim and chose not to serve a Defence to the 20 Counterclaim. 21 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 11 of 14
On the 24th March 2011 the Sixth Defendant served the Plaintiff with a sealed 1 copy of its Summons dated the 14th March 2011 together with the Third and 2 Fourth Affidavits of Clive Jackson, referred to above. 3
Counsel for the Plaintiff has informed the Court that the Plaintiff instructed 4 his firm of attorneys in relation to the costs of the London arbitration 5 sometime in late January or early February 2011. However, counsel for the 6 Plaintiff informed the Court that his firm was only instructed in relation to the 7 Cayman litigation in March 2011. The Court notes that in the letter dated the 8 24th March 2011 from Mourant Ozannes to Appleby the Plaintiff confirmed 9 that “Mr. Bhatia is not authorised to speak on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the 10 opinions he expressed in his email of the 8th March 2011 are his personal 11 opinions”. 12
There followed an exchange of correspondence between Appleby and 13 Mourant Ozannes. I note from Mourant Ozannes’ letter and email of the 1st 14 April 2011, and Mourant Ozannes’ letter to Appleby of the 18th April 2011, 15 that the firm purported to be acting for the Plaintiff but did not file any Notice 16 of Change of Attorneys, nor did Mourant Ozannes indicate what, if any, 17 position the Plaintiff was taking in relation to the Sixth Defendant’s 18 Counterclaim or the Sixth Defendant’s Summons for interlocutory judgment, 19 which is before the Court. 20
It was not until the 28th April 2011 that Mourant Ozanne filed the Notice of 21 Change of Attorney and wrote to the Sixth Defendant’s attorneys with a re- 22 amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. 23 24 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 12 of 14 Conclusion 1
This Court finds that the Plaintiff has breached the Rules of the Grand Court 2 in not filing a Notice of Intention to Defend or a Defence within the time 3 allowed for by the Grand Court Rules. 4
Furthermore, knowing that the Defence is out of time, the Plaintiff has not 5 asked the Sixth Defendant for any extension of time or filed a Summons 6 seeking the leave of the Court to file and serve its Defence to the 7 Counterclaim out of time. The Court notes that almost four months have 8 elapsed since the Defence was due to be filed. The Plaintiff has ignored the 9 deadlines imposed by the Grand Court Rules for filing its Defence to the Sixth 10 Defendant’s Counterclaim. 11
The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Plaintiff has at its 12 disposal professional servants and agents, highly experienced in business, 13 such as Ms. Herviou. Furthermore, Mourant Ozannes will now be the third 14 firm of Cayman attorneys acting in this matter, so the Plaintiff is well aware 15 of the capacity for Cayman attorneys to act and comply with the Rules of the 16 Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. 17
There has been no indication that a Defence would be filed. There has been no 18 indication that leading counsel in England had been retained to prepare and 19 settle the draft Defence, which was submitted to the Plaintiff’s attorneys on 20 the 28th April 2011. In fact, there has been what the Sixth Defendant’s 21 counsel described as a “striking absence of any explanation” either before 22 Mourant Ozannes were retained or since. 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 13 of 14
For the aforesaid reasons I find that the Plaintiff is in breach of the Rules of 1 the Grand Court and allowed the breach to continue for weeks and months. 2 Consequently, I find that the Sixth Defendant is entitled to the relief it seeks 3 in its Summons dated the 3rd March 2011. 4
Accordingly, I make an order in the following terms: 5 i. That interlocutory judgment on the Sixth Defendant’s 6 Counterclaim be entered against the Plaintiff in default of 7 Defence to Counterclaim, with damages to be assessed and costs 8 (including the costs of such assessment) to be taxed on an 9 indemnity basis. 10 ii. That a permanent or final injunction is granted against the 11 Plaintiff forthwith in the following terms: 12 a. A permanent injunction is hereby granted to 13 restrain the Plaintiff (Embassy Investments 14 Limited), whether by its directors, officers, 15 servants, agents or otherwise, from howsoever 16 publishing the words complained of by the Sixth 17 Defendant (Houston Casualty Company) in its 18 Counterclaim, or any similar words defamatory 19 of the Sixth Defendant. 20 iii. That damages be assessed before a Judge of the Grand Court, the 21 appointment for such assessment to be made upon the 22 application of the Sixth Defendant to the Clerk of the Court 23 Ruling. Embassy Investments v. Ascot Corp. et al. Cause Numbers 278/05 and 127 &128/06 Consolidated with Cause 98/06 Coram Quin J. Date: 3.5.11 Page 14 of 14 within fourteen (14) days of the date Judgment is entered in 1 accordance with paragraph i., above. 2 iv. That at least seven (7) days before the date of such appointment, 3 the Sixth Defendant shall serve notice of the same on the 4 Plaintiff. 5 v. That the Sixth Defendant serve affidavit evidence to be relied on 6 at the assessment of damages hearing within twenty-eight (28) 7 days of the date Judgment is entered in accordance with 8 paragraph i. above. 9 vi. That the Plaintiff do serve any evidence in reply within twenty- 10 eight (28) days thereafter. 11 vii. That the Sixth Defendant serve any evidence in response within 12 fourteen (14) days thereafter. 13 viii. That the parties exchange Skeleton Arguments seven (7) days 14 prior to the assessment of damages hearing. 15 16 Dated this the 3rd day of May 2011 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin 23 Judge of the Grand Court 24