Levers J
```markdown # IN CHAMBERS # IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ## LANDS DEPARTMENT LIBRARY ## CAUSE NOS. 555 of 2005 & 80 of 2007 ### BETWEEN: **TASARRUE MEVDUATI SIGNORTA FONU** (Plaintiff) AND:
MERRILL LYNCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (CAYMAN) LIMITED
KAFFEE LIMITED
BARLA FINANCE LIMITED
CONUR CASH LIMITED
MEDRO LIMITED
YAHYA MURAT DEMIREL (Defendants) Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Levers Appearances: - Mr. Simon Dickson of Quin & Hampson for the plaintiff - Mr. Jeremy Walton of Appleby for the defendants Heard: 16th April, 2007 ## RULING Levers, J. This is the Summons for a variation of an order made in Cause 555 of 2005, seeking the Plaintiff to use disclosed information in Cause 555 of 2005 in Cause 80 of 2007. In the latter cause a worldwide Mareva has been obtained. ```
```html 1 Mr. Walton for the Plaintiff readily concedes that the variation sought is to 2 investigate the Plaintiffs assets in other jurisdictions outside Cayman for the 3 purpose of commencing actions other than in Cayman to enforce a judgment 4 obtained through the Turkish Courts. The two claims are a proprietary claim 5 in 555 and an enforcement of judgment claim in 80. He submits that the 6 affidavit of mere denial filed by Mr. Demirel, (the Defendant) in Cause 80 of 7 2007 puts the matters in issue and therefore in the interest of justice I should 8 exercise my discretion in favour of the Plaintiff who seeks to trace assets in 9 Switzerland, the U.S.A, Germany, Lichtenstein and the Channel Islands. He 10 concedes that the only specific information that he has is about the yacht. 11 12 Mr. Simon Dickson for the Defendant on the other hand submits that the 13 application is premature. He says the judgment that is being enforced is 14 being contested and if the Mareva is discharged (application is being made) 15 then the reason for the enquiry will fall away as the Court will no longer be 16 interested in the assets. The width of the Mareva he says makes it 17 oppressive and will be enormously detrimental to Mr. Demirel. 18 19 It is trite law that the use of discovery should only be varied in very specific 20 circumstances. ```
The factual situation at present is that the judgment which is being sought to be enforced is being contested. The very Mareva Injunction is the subject matter of an application to discharge. I having considered all the authorities including Babanaft International Co. S.A. v Bassatne and another [1990] Ch 90, in particular, page 46 F: However, having considered Kerr L.J.'s observations on Ashtiani v. Kashi [1987] Q.B. 888, one point which strikes me forcefully is this. I say nothing concerning the circumstances in which it will be proper for the court to make an order for the disclosure of information regarding assets situated abroad, either before judgment or after judgment. That is not a matter which arose, or was argued, on this appeal. But in all cases where such an order is sought or made the court will need to be alive to the importance of exercising control over the use of information disclosed compulsorily about assets situated overseas. And page 47 D: A second point follows from this. Once information has been disclosed it cannot be recalled. The disclosure of information is an irreversible step. The only means available to the English court to control the use made abroad of information disclosed concerning foreign assets is such control as the English court may have in the circumstances over the plaintiff to whom it has compelled the defendant to make disclosure. Thus before making a disclosure order in respect of
foreign assets, the court normally will need to be satisfied that, by reason of the plaintiff's continuing connection with this country or otherwise, the court has over the plaintiff a degree of control sufficient to ensure compliance with any orders it may make regarding the use of the information.” I rule that the Summons should not be varied at this stage and I will not release the Plaintiff from its implied undertaking. Costs to be reserved to the hearing of the injunction application. Dated this day of April, 2007 Levers, J. Acting Chief Justice Page 4 of 4
foreign assets, the court normally will need to be satisfied that, by reason of the plaintiff's continuing connection with this country or otherwise, the court has over the plaintiff a degree of control sufficient to ensure compliance with any orders it may make regarding the use of the information.” I rule that the Summons should not be varied at this stage and I will not release the Plaintiff from its implied undertaking. Costs to be reserved to the hearing of the injunction application. Dated this 20th day of April, 2007 Levers, J. Acting Chief Justice Page 4 of 4