Henderson J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
7/12/06
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CAUSE NO. D11/2006
BETWEEN：
DARRELL HINES
PETITIONER
AND：
ESTHER HASSETT
RESPONDENT
Appearances：
Ms. Alisa Williamson of Stuarts Walker Hersant for the
Petitioner
Ms. Sheridan Brooks of Brooks & Brooks for the Respondent
Before：
Hon. Justice Henderson
Heard：
December 6， 2006
JUDGMENT
Does this court have jurisdiction to order the parties to a matrimonial proceeding to make
disclosure， including financial disclosure， prior to a finding that the petition has been
proved? That is the point at issue on this application.
The Petitioner， Darrell Hines， has alleged in his amended petition that he has acquired a
domicile of choice in the Cayman Islands. The Respondent， Esther Hassett， denies that to
be the case. The petition has been set for hearing in February， 2007.
The las asked th in my octie the heape
the
ve pronoun for directi
34
rded to experir
ement th
Petitioner hat I includediti ons a recattition.
I had an ordeons inter
parties make full disclosure of relevant evidence to each other， including disclosure of all
financial matters. I am also asked to set deadlines for applications to cross-examine witnesses and for the service of interrogatories and witness statements. The Respondent resists these directions, arguing that the court has no jurisdiction to give them until after the petition itself has been heard and decided in the Petitioner's favour.
Ms. Brooks, for the Petitioner, cites no authority in support of her proposition other than the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision) ("the Law") and the Matrimonial Causes Rules (2003 Revision) ("the Rules"). She says that the traditional procedure, which is still the only procedure available in the Cayman Islands, requires a two-stage approach. The Petition must be heard and decided first. If, but only if, there is an order that the petition has been proved, then discovery takes place with respect to all ancillary issues. Once that has been accomplished, there is to be a second, separate hearing in chambers to dispose of the ancillary issues. After they have all been disposed of, the court then grants a decree of dissolution.
This procedure, although it may at one time have been conventional in the Cayman Islands, is no longer suited to modern conditions and the reasonable expectations of litigants in this court. It can only generate delay, to no purpose. I would not accede to this submission unless the express terms of the Law and the Rules require such a finding.
This is the transcription of the provided text. The page number and the footer text are not included in the transcription as they are not part of the content to be transcribed.
(a) an order for security of costs;
(b) directions as to the manner in which the evidence shall be given; and
(c) orders for the attendance of witnesses.
The overall goal is the "expeditious adjudication of the cause" and the directions are
given to that end. The list of matters upon which directions may be given is not
exhaustive, as is indicated by use of the word "including." Another matter which may be
a subject of a directions order, and which tends to be the most troublesome of the issues
commonly addressed, is disclosure. The expeditious adjudication of a matrimonial
proceeding requires that disclosure, particularly financial disclosure, be addressed at the
earliest reasonable opportunity.
The Law provides that the court may not pronounce a decree of dissolution until it is
satisfied that all ancillary matters have been provided for: Law, section 12 (5). Section 21
of the Law requires that a court make orders providing for ancillary matters "at the time
of pronouncing a decree under this Law...". Section 27 (4) of the Law permits the court
to adjourn the hearing of a petition, to require further evidence, and to require ancillary
matters to be dealt with in chambers. There is no mandatory requirement for ancillaries to
be dealt with in chambers, although the practice is a salutary one.
Judgment - Darell Hines v. Esther Hassett Cause No. D11 of 2006 07.12.06
1
I am directing that the ancillaries be heard and decided in chambers, in keeping with the
usual practice. The chambers application should be set down for a date shortly after the
hearing of the petition in open court；if the petition is dismissed, the chambers hearing
will, of course, be struck off the list.
5
6
I am satisfied there is nothing in the Law or the Rules which prevents me from making an
7
order for directions requiring disclosure now. That will expedite the progress of this
8
action and allow the hearing on ancillary issues to take place shortly after the hearing of
9
the petition itself. No prejudice can be suffered by a spouse who is required to make
10
disclosure of his or her financial affairs to the other party to the marriage, and that is true
11
whether the disclosure must be made before or after the petition is heard.
12
13
I direct each of the parties to disclose the following documents within 21 days：
14
(a) documents evidencing any interest in real property, including
15
documents pertaining to the mortgagor's or mortgagee's interest；
16
17
(b) copies of the last three tax returns with respect to income tax
18
paid in any jurisdiction；
19
20
(c) the latest bank statement from all bank accounts in which the
21
party has a legal or beneficial interest；
22
23
(d) documents evidencing legal or beneficial ownership of any
24
security；
25
26
(e) documents evidencing ownership of any other asset having a
30
from amended
27
value in$1，000；
nts evidenc
he last two
28
29
(f) docume
ing incom t
31
32
(g) documents evidencing the current state of any liabilities owed.
33
Judgment - Darell Hines v. Esther Hassett Cause No. D11 of 2006 07.12.06
1
I have not ordered either of the parties to obtain appraisals of real property because there
2
is a significant cost attached to that and the cost aspect has not been addressed by counsel
3
in argument.
4
5
I also order that documents having any relevance or possible relevance to the intention or
6
ability of the petitioner to remain in the Cayman Islands indefinitely be disclosed within
7
twenty-one days.
8
9
The submission made by Ms. Brooks on behalf of the Respondent, although not
10
successful, addresses a novel procedural issue and is of some importance. Accordingly, I
11
leave each party to bear his or her costs of this application.
12
13
Dated this 7th day of December, 2006
14
15
Henderson，J.
16
Henderson，J.
17
Judge of the Grand Court
18
19
20
21
22
23
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{a4paper, margin=1in}
\section*{Judgment - Darell Hines v. Esther Hassett Cause No. D11 of 2006 07.12.06}
I have not ordered either of the parties to obtain appraisals of real property because there is a significant cost attached to that and the cost aspect has not been addressed by counsel in argument.
I also order that documents having any relevance or possible relevance to the intention or ability of the petitioner to remain in the Cayman Islands indefinitely be disclosed within twenty-one days.
The submission made by Ms. Brooks on behalf of the Respondent, although not successful, addresses a novel procedural issue and is of some importance. Accordingly, I leave each party to bear his or her costs of this application.
Dated this 7th day of December, 2006
Henderson, J.
Judge of the Grand Court