6,970 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 4563 · pdb #2190

Vista Del Mar Development Ltd v Janet Francis and Dwight Clarke - Ruling

G 0247/2014 · 2016-09-23

Court's inherent jurisdiction and discretion to Stay Execution of Judgment to allow losing party to consider appeal. Application for stay of execution of judgment to allow time to consider appeal

All PDF copies on file (2)

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.

PDB 20 May 2026 CURRENT
16-09-23_vista_del_mar_development_ltd_v_janet_francis_and_dwight_clarke.pdf
77.51 KB · md5 4d9286757c995cf94f4783627b01bf4e
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/16-09-23_vista_del_mar_development_ltd_v_janet_francis_and_dwight_clarke.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
7IIJWFYWMOGF1DE608B610A6D6800C37DC3702E44E4547E3D229.pdf
77.5 KB · md5 e7d26c2584f7bab3f88157a0252972da
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=723 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=4563 (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 26 May 2026 19:12 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #12191 · quality 0.84
Text extraction
olmocr · qwen2.5vl:7b
3,069 chars in 15671 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:32b-a9b-h
parsed first try · 12367 ms
Validation flags (2): cause_number court
Full metadata
Full text9 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 — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0247/2014
Between
Vista Del Mar Development Ltd
- v -
Janet Francis and Dwight Clarke - Ruling
Before
Mangatal J
Judgment delivered 2016-09-23

```markdown # IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ## CAUSE NO G 247 of 2014 ### BETWEEN #### VISTA DEL MAR DEVELOPMENT LTD - Plaintiff #### AND - (1) JANET FRANCIS - (2) DWIGHT CLARKE - Defendants ## CONSIDERED ON THE PAPERS Before: - The Hon. Justice Ingrid Mangatal Date Considered: - 22 September 2016 Date Delivered: - 23 September 2016 ## HEADING Civil Practice and Procedure - Court's inherent jurisdiction and discretion to Stay Execution of Judgment to allow losing party to consider appeal. ## RULING I have considered the application of the Defendants dated 21 September 2016, seeking a six week stay of execution of the Judgment in this matter, which I delivered on 20 September 2016.

I have also considered the Plaintiff's opposition to the application, as set out in its letter dated 22 September 2016.

In my Judgment, it is plain that the Court has a discretion to stay execution of a Judgment for a short period, in order to allow a losing party the opportunity to consider whether to appeal the decision. This is a separate and distinct discretion from that which a Court may be asked to exercise after an appeal has been filed, and pending its final determination, which is guided by different principles. The current application is in essence seeking the Court's exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to do justice.

In this case, I gave final Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, and ordered specific performance of the Agreement for Sale, as amended by the Deed of Variation to Agreement, in the manner sought in paragraph 19(1) of the Statement of Claim. The terms of the Judgment include orders requiring the parties to carry out certain obligations within 7 days of the date of the Judgment.

The Defendants are entitled to appeal as of right.

Section 19(1) of the Court of Appeal Law (2011 Revision) requires that an appeal be brought by the appellant within 14 days after the date of the Judgment.

Rule 11(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules (2014 Revision) indicates that the 14 days is calculated from the date upon which the Judgment is filed in accordance with Grand Court Rule Order 42, Rule 5. The Judgment has not yet been filed and sealed.

In my view to grant a stay of the Judgment in this particular case since, without evidence as to the effective time of appeal called for in the Judgment will take effect prior to the 14-day period set out in the Court of Appeal Law. 160923 Vista Del Mar Development Ltd v Janet Francis and Dwight Clarke - Ruling 2 of 3

However, the period of six weeks sought by the Defendants is inappropriate in all of the circumstances of this case. I am minded to grant a stay of execution of the Judgment until 7 October 2016, to allow the Defendants to consider whether to appeal. It is so ordered. THE HON. JUSTICE MANGATAL JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline 160923 Vista Del Mar Development Ltd v Janet Francis and Dwight Clarke - Ruling & 3 of 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

Find similar