6,970 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 4606 · pdb #2179

Alva Suckoo and Diane Martinez v Ignition Technology Group Ltd - Ruling

G 0129/2015 · 2016-05-31

Application to Amend Writ and Statement of Claim and Substitute Plaintiff; Costs; Whether to be Taxed Immediately; Application to Strike Out Pleading; Summary Judgment Application; Defence of Tender; Order 20, Order 18 r.16, and r.19, Order14, 14A and Order 62 r.9 of the Grand Court Rules, 1995 (Revised Edition). Amendment of pleadings and substitution of plaintiff; Summary judgment and strike out applications; Interpretation of asset purchase agreement and earn-out provisions; Defence of tender before action

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
16-05-31_suckoo_and_martinez_v_ignition_technology_ltd.pdf
854.87 KB · md5 2b42e6479c98353a77b6dbe114e6c59e
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/16-05-31_suckoo_and_martinez_v_ignition_technology_ltd.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
21264YMREJIK1DE608B30660395F197122C1BD17810706EF05A7.pdf
854.86 KB · md5 5b64c6bf376be022a9fa4436816aac8d
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=700 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=4606 (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 9 Jun 2026 08:34 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #50890 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
olmocr · olmocr-2-7b-1025
1,081 chars in 356138 ms
LLM extraction
local · qwen3-next:80b
parsed first try · 107284 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number judgment_date court
Full metadata
Cause Number G 0129/2015
Court CIGC (Civ)
Judge Mangatal J
Parties Alva Suckoo and Diane Martinez v Ignition Technology Group Ltd - Ruling
Judgment Date 2016-05-31
Subject Application to Amend Writ and Statement of Claim and Substitute Plaintiff; Costs; Whether to be Taxed Immediately; Application to Strike Out Pleading; Summary Judgment Application; Defence of Tender; Order 20, Order 18 r.16, and r.19, Order14, 14A and Order 62 r.9 of the Grand Court Rules, 1995 (Revised Edition). Amendment of pleadings and substitution of plaintiff; Summary judgment and strike out applications; Interpretation of asset purchase agreement and earn-out provisions; Defence of tender before action
Filename (current) 16-05-31_suckoo_and_martinez_v_ignition_technology_ltd.pdf
File MD5 2b42e6479c98353a77b6dbe114e6c59e
Source pipeline pdb
PDB record ID 2179
PDB URL https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/16-05-31_suckoo_and_martinez_v_ignition_technology_ltd.pdf
Full text6 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 0129/2015
Between
Alva Suckoo and Diane Martinez
- v -
Ignition Technology Group Ltd - Ruling
Before
Mangatal J
Judgment delivered 2016-05-31

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
into negotiations for the sale of the assets

Application to substitute plaintiff; 2
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR
Ignition would have been entitled to tender
(d) As a result of the manner
may forthwith order the costs of any
(2) This rule applies to every
(2) Upon such determination the court
(3) This rule shall, so
full for some of the Assumed Contracts

Further, that even after

Mr. Kennedy submits that
the parties’ rights to full discovery and
(c) Any determination of the question of
As a result of this interpretation Counsel states

Further canons of construction
claim has no prospect of success or that
delay a consideration of this application. It
clear and precise terms - see 1
could have tendered that amount into Court

I therefore make the following

Find similar