Henderson J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN CAUSE NO: 78 OF 2006 BETWEEN: (1) SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (CAYMAN) LIMITED (2) THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 151 (KNOWN AS WINDSOR VILLAGE) Plaintiffs -AND- (1) CRAWFORD ADJUSTERS (CAYMAN) LIMITED (2) BOULD PATERSON LIMITED (3) ALASTAIR PATERSON (4) HURLSTONE LIMITED (5) HURLSTONE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED (6) JOHN HURLSTONE (7) ROBERT HURLSTONE Defendants -AND- IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CAUSE NO. 573 of 2008 BETWEEN: (1) HURLSTONE LIMITED (2) HURLSTONE GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED (3) JOHN HURLSTONE (4) ROBERT HURLSTONE Plaintiffs -AND- (1) SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (CAYMAN) LIMITED (2) THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 151 (KNOWN AS WINDSOR VILLAGE) Defendants Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Henderson Appearances: Mr. Michael Roberts Q.C. instructed by Mr. Nick Dunne of Walkers for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Mr. Thomas Lowe, Q.C. instructed by Mr. Christopher J. McDuff of Thorp Alberga for the 4th to 7th Defendants Mr. Anthony Bueno Q.C. instructed by Mr. Graham Hampson for the 1st and 3rd Defendants Heard on 18th December 2009 RULING 1 At the conclusion of final argument in this lengthy trial, the defendants have applied to re-amend their pleadings. The first, second and third defendants wish to re-amend their counterclaim by the addition of: 7 (1) an allegation of damage to the reputations of these defendants flowing from an article in the Cayman Compass describing the original allegations (by Sagicor and Windsor Village) of fraud and conspiracy; 8 (2) an allegation that the article mentioned above was “planted” by Frank Delessio, an executive of Sagicor, with the object of destroying the reputations and businesses of the defendants; 15 references to the “frequent expression” by Mr. Delessio of his dislike of and hostility towards Alastair Patterson; 18 (4) the attribution of a statement to Sagicor’s chief executive officer that it had the means to take its fraud and conspiracy case “the full distance... to put your boys [i.e. the Hurlstones] out of business”; 22 a reference to the obtaining of a mareva injunction against the Hurlstone parties and the attempt to obtain one against defendants 1 to 3; 25 an allegation that the respective experts have agreed on the amount of special damages (subject to a ruling on liability) in the amount of CI$1.3 million; 1 (7) an allegation that defendants 1, 2 and 3 suffered damage, including special 2 damage, resulting from loss of business arising from publicity given to the 3 original fraud and conspiracy action; 4 (8) in the prayer for relief, a claim to the agreed special damages, to interest 5 and to costs. 6 7 Defendants 4 to 7, the Hurlstone parties, seek leave to re-amend their statement of 8 claim to include some, but not all, of the additional matters referred to above. 9 10 As with any request for an amendment, the overriding concern is whether it will 11 cause prejudice. I am satisfied that no prejudice will arise from any of these 12 requested changes. In every case, the “new” allegations have been the subject of 13 extensive evidence and argument. There is no reason to think that any of these 14 amendments come as a surprise to Sagicor or Windsor Village; the newly pleaded 15 allegations serve only to bring within the pleading matters of fact which have 16 already been examined extensively and without objection from the plaintiffs. 17 18 Sagicor and Windsor Village argue that leave to amend should not be granted as 19 the claim, in its amended form, would have no reasonable prospect of success. I 20 do not think it would be fruitful or even proper to undertake that analysis at this 21 time. The trial is at an end, or virtually so, and assessing the requested 22 amendments as if the trial had not yet started would be a wholly artificial and 23 pointless exercise. For these brief reasons, the two applications to amend are 24 allowed.
The plaintiffs have requested a right to make further submissions on some of the matters referred to in the amendments. Although I am unconvinced of the need for it, I will grant leave to the plaintiffs to file a further written argument within 14 days. This argument must be confined to matters referred to in the most recent amendments and may not exceed 15 pages in length. The defendants have had a more than ample opportunity to argue their case and are not permitted to make any further argument. The plaintiffs’ request for a direction that submissions made by the defendants on the merits of the case which were interspersed with their written submissions seeking leave to amend should be ignored is refused; those submissions will be taken into account.
The amendments have not imposed any additional costs upon these plaintiffs and are unlikely to do so; I make no order as to the costs of the application for leave to amend. Dated: 14th January 2010 The Hon. Mr. Justice Alexander Henderson Judge of the Grand Court