Chadwick P
IN THE COURT ON APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CICA FROM THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS Division (Cresswell 2011 - PCJ) MARTIN S KENNEY CC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED No: 35 of 2013 98 Appellants UPON JUDGMENT AND UPON RE- paragraph AND FOR THE IT IS ORDERED
That the which fol- ACE LIMITED Respon- ORDER ENT in this Appeal having been delivered on 6 May 2015 ADING the written representations filed on behalf of the party 11 of the Judgment AND without an oral hearing REASONS set out in the Schedule to this Order D. Appellants pay to the Respondent its costs of and occasioned at the avoidance of doubt, shall include the costs incurred by a ment to Appeal client pursuant to by this appeal the Respondent in resist- October
Such costs days of s Given under my ing the applications for leave to appeal determined on 28 June 2013. (These are to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed) and, in an assessment or agreement. hand and the Seal of the Court this 11 day of November 2015. —— The 2013 and 7 said within 14 Registrar
(1) At par- view - that the appeal. (2) The Co- on both reasons. SCHEDULE OF REASONS graph 11 of its judgment on this appeal the Court expressed subject to any representations which the parties might wish to appellants should pay to the respondent its costs of and on art has considered the written submissions on costs dated 201r of the Appellants, Martin S Kenney and CC International set out in these submissions the appellants seek an order that court has the provisional put before it - assigned by this May 2015 filed limited. For the that the costs of the ap- those or and orders (3) In adva- in resp- at this that (i) costs ar- with the hearing (there was re- strongly applying would interlo- oral eve- would. ntal be reserved; alternatively (if that primary submission is mosts be costs in the case. In advancing those submissions the art that the judge below, Justice Sir Peter Cresswell, ordered (28 June 2013) that the costs of hearings before him should be - during the ir submission that the like order - "costs reserved" - contend that it would be a premature stage of the litigation, to make an order for costs and/or to assess the issue determined on the appeal was of an interlocutorye more appropriately determined after a final hearing of the case and (ii) that the approach of the judge below should be adopting, it is submitted) no good reason to depart from that, if it is submitted, the appeal was from an interlocutory order in a case on the basis of limited evidence. further to determine issues on the basis of limited evidence or to assess the issue determined after a final hearing of the case against the appellants on an interim basis "as being an adversary nature of the application, the Court has not had the burden of disputed issues of fact. An order reserving the right is said, give rise to no, or no real prejudice to the respondent at accepted) that appellants remind n 26 April 2013 deserved. should be made as those costs, in nature and that substantive issues come of that final at approach. In or and the Court it could" and by for process that if they even the need of hearing tests at this stage it. (4) In adv- "costs that no hearings (5) The s misun- was an proceed proce- enable a perso "real p- noting their alternative submission, that an order that the costs in the case", the appellants rely on the same contentions. It is evals at the final substantive hearing should be awarded as well as the costs of any future hearings. submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are understanding of the nature of the appeal which was before this Court, on an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the judge on an interlocutory application to set aside permittings out of the jurisdiction - this Court was not deciding the trial basis. The issues for this Court were: i) whether GCR Ont the court to order service out of the jurisdiction in a "non-party to the proceedings" courtty" for the purposes of the test in Dymocka Franchise System on the appeal be said that the party the costs of the founded on a court. Although it litigation in these suits before it on der 11, rule 9(2) id be treated as a ty costs" case on dms (NSW) Pre v
Todd (N) the mat- out had treated. turn on second parties or deciding case as argumen- after dis- treated as the ques- tion of whether the judge had trial before him, to take the view that the party seeking the of "much the better of the argument" that the person to be served on a proper understanding of the findings of fact made on incomplete evidential material. In all those issues, this Court was not deciding on an interlocutor be served were to be treated as "real parties" within the Dymock's test will be oftion whether the judge was correct to determine the second of entitled, on der for service d was to be so law; it did not determining the by basis that the strength of the costs test; it was hereforth of the decision. In the should not be no relevance to those issues is he did. (6) The Court filed a the terms for the s costs of Plainly, (7) For those view ex- t has also considered the written submissions as to costs date half of the respondent. The respondent is content with any indicated by the Court in its judgment of 6 May 2015; but see evidence of doubt, that the costs of and occasioned by this ap-the applications (both to the judge and to this Court) for they do. reasons this Court is not persuaded that it should depart from pressed in paragraph 111 of the judgment dated 6 May 2015. C. 120 May 2015 der for costs in clarification, shall include the have to appeal. the provisional HADWICK, P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100