6,970 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 22

Fazio v. Hyatt Britania Corporation Ltd.

G 0576 OF 1996 · 2000-Oct-11

Application to strike out for inordinate and inexcusable delay

All PDF copies on file (1)

Every PDF we hold for this judgment is listed here, including legacy versions pulled from earlier upstream pipelines. Each carries a provenance note so the source of each copy is explicit.

CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
1GYF5770FZHI1DE608CA01D3BC0D6D598A4336779554308C2112.pdf
39.78 KB · md5 7b55248dbfb20dfcbf47b37cbf6ac8ad
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=22 from the now-frozen judicial.ky CSV pipeline (Box.com signed-URL AJAX action=dl_bfile). Kept on disk for reference; the PDB release is the canonical current version. | re-homed from jid=6051 (identity-slide repair 2026-06-12)

Processing-run history (1)

Every time a PDF for this judgment has been put through the AI/OCR pipeline we record what we found. Lets us decide which PDFs to re-process when a better model lands.

MEDIUM 24 May 2026 04:06 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #2086 · quality 0.84
Text extraction
pymupdf
2,011 chars in 6 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:small-h
parsed first try · 17851 ms
Validation flags (2): cause_number court
Full metadata
Full text2 paragraphs Download PDF

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands
Cause No. G 0576 OF 1996
Between
Fazio
- v -
Hyatt Britania Corporation Ltd.
Judgment delivered 2000-Oct-11

1
IN CHAMBERS
2
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
3
CAUSE 576 OF 1996
4
5
BETWEEN:
BEATRICE NAOMI FAZIO
PLAINTIFF
6
AND:
HYATT BRITANIA CORPORATION LTD.
DEFENDANT
7
8
Before: Justice Anthony Smellie
9
Dated: 11 th October 2000
10
11
DECISION
12
13
The defendant seeks to strike out the action on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable
14
delay on the part of the plaintiff.
15
I accept that there has been inordinate delay; by definition six years must be so regarded.
16
However, I do not find that the delay is inexcusable.
17
I accept from the chronology of events that the matter was never allowed by the plaintiff
18
"to go to sleep". There were ongoing attempts and discussions for settlement which
19
ultimately did not succeed because of the worsening nature of the plaintiffs condition.
20
I accept that Mr. Allen as her attorney acted properly in not accepting offers of settlement
21
made in circumstances where his client's condition had not been finally diagnosed and
22
assessed and so while the extent of the damages could not be anticipated or advised upon.
23
On the authority of Marlton (an infant) v Lee-Leviten 1968 I WLR 1214 - delay is
1 .

1
excusable if occasioned from the need to ascertain the true nature of the plaintiffs
2
injuries.
3
The defendant has, in my view, identified no real likelihood of prejudice arising from the
4
delay.
5
For these and other reasons canvassed during the hearing, the application to strike out for
6
inordinate and excusable delay is refused.
7
The plaintiffs application to strike out the defence on grounds of failure to meet
8
discovery obligations is also refused, but a strict limit will now be placed on the time for
9
compliance by the defence to be backed by an "unless" order.
10
On the plaintiffs sunuuons for directions, directions will also now be given as to the final
11
steps to be taken in preparation for trial.
12
13
16
18
day of October 2000
I
\
2

Find similar
Related public-register entries