Ramsay-Hale J
1 IN CHAMBERS 2 IN THE GRAND 3 4 CAUSE NO. 798 5 BETWEEN: NA 6 AND: IVA 7 9 10 CORAM: MM 11 12 Appearances: 13 Mr. Kyle Broadhurst 14 Mr. Steve McField 15 COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 799/02; 801-802/02; 808-810/02 TIONAL CONCRETE & ORS PLA LEE SCOTT DEFE E. JUSTICE RAMSAY-HALE st of Broadhurst Barristers for the plaintiffs of Steve McField & Associates for the defendant NT IF ES NDANT 16 Date of hearing: 21 17 18 19 This is an applicat 20 out and judgment 21 with orders made for 22 Counsel for the Pl 23 Edition in support of 24 "An 'unless' 25 and disobed February 2006 RULING on by the plaintiffs that the defences filed in these n intered for the plaintiff as the defendant herein has f r discovery, two of which were 'unless' orders made b ntiffs cited the Learned Editors of the Supreme Court. This application: order spells out the consequences of failure to comply ence to such an order is likely to be held to continue atters be struck uled to comply y Levers J. Practice 1999 v Yeats's terms ous behaviour, 26 resulting in 27 The authorities may 28 astute to find excl 29 foundation on which 30 R 630. the dismissal of the action, or the striking out of the de ree it clear that, as a matter of principle, "The Court is for such failure since obedience to orders of this authority is founded". Re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd. should not be a Court is the
1 All E
1 The issue to be 2 contumcious. It is 3 intention to ignore 4 circumstances. 5 Counsel for the docu- 6 orders but had exp- 7 of her husband's i 8 documents which 9 unsupported by any 10 to instruct her attorney. 11 She is clearly in a 12 dated February, 6th 13 did in fact make an 14 Summary judgment 15 None of the matter 16 response to the or- 17 underwent surgery evidence by the defendant herself going to show that they or make the appropriate disclosure as a result. position to make an Affidavit. She purports to do so which was produced to the Court at the hearing of this Affidavit in April 2005 in response to the Plaintiff at a time when she was undergoing treatment for can- cer put before me explain the defendant's failure to make her disclosure in 2003. There is nothing in the fact that for breast cancer and chemotherapy in April of 2005 she was unable in a document a matter and she application for er. ke disclosure in this Defendant that satisfies me 18 that she has not be- 19 disclosure. Her blame 20 summons for an "I" 21 granted by the Leal 22 Nothing said by t 23 exonerates her failure en in a position to instruct her Attorney ess was a matter that was raised with Levers J. at the illness" order in November of 2005 and that order w tmed Judge on terms she was satisfied the Defend- e defendant in her Affidavit of 4th February, 20 te to do so. an d to make a hearing of the as nonetheless nt could meet. 96 explains or
1 I am satisfied on 2 sufficient excuse; 3 I have had sight of which documents cure the default of ordered. 6 I find her failure to 7 has delayed the tri- the evidence that the defendant has consistently failed to obey the orders of the Court for disclosure. the documents disclosed to the plaintiffs the day bef- were not included in the bundle. This attempt at com- mplained of as the disclosure made falls far short of being intentional and contumacious. That failure to dis- close documents tiffs herein. To 9 grant a further exte- 10 an abuse of process. 11 In the result, I ord- 12 related matters be action to the plaintif- 13 14 15 16 17 Hon. Justice Ramsey 18 Acting Judge of the session of time to a defendant who persists in default wil- ler that the defences in the matter of National Correc- truck out. I enter judgment for the plaintiffs and aw- Ton an indemnity basis. y-Hale Grand Court could be to permit Ltd. and other ard costs in the 19 21st February 2006