6,970 judgments 29,205 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment · jid 6064 · pdb #1901

Terk Technologies Corporation v Devan Dockery and Windmaster Manufacturing - Reasons for Judgment

G 0262/2000 · 2000-08-16

Stay of execution; Enforcement of foreign arbitral award; Discretion under Order 47 Rule 1; Terms of stay; Disclosure of assets; Security and injunction against dissipation

All PDF copies on file (2)

Every PDF we hold for this judgment is listed here, including legacy versions pulled from earlier upstream pipelines. Each carries a provenance note so the source of each copy is explicit.

PDB 20 May 2026 CURRENT
00-08-16_terk_technologies_corporation_v_devan_dockery__ors.pdf
1.04 MB · md5 432f6fd67f8dc43805fddd6f396de229
Downloaded 2026-05-20 from the new judicial.ky Participants-Database release at https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository/00-08-16_terk_technologies_corporation_v_devan_dockery__ors.pdf.
CSV 13 Apr 2025 CURRENT
2G9YQTEG39YC1DE608910726F69F12CF35082D8412A5194B1ABB.pdf
1006.85 KB · md5 c9a246090ceeb7a08b0947ebc7cfcadf
Legacy box_files copy — originally downloaded under jid=18 from the now-frozen judicial.ky CSV pipeline (Box.com signed-URL AJAX action=dl_bfile). Kept on disk for reference; the PDB release is the canonical current version. | re-homed from jid=6064 (identity-slide repair 2026-06-12)

Processing-run history (1)

Every time a PDF for this judgment has been put through the AI/OCR pipeline we record what we found. Lets us decide which PDFs to re-process when a better model lands.

MEDIUM 26 May 2026 20:46 · pipeline 0.2.0-akn run #12218 · quality 0.80
Text extraction
olmocr · granite3.2-vision:2b
5,284 chars in 369314 ms
LLM extraction
local · granite4:3b-h
parsed first try · 18572 ms
Validation flags (3): cause_number judgment_date court
Full metadata
Full text6 paragraphs Download PDF

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0262/2000
Between
Terk Technologies Corporation
- v -
Devan Dockery and Windmaster Manufacturing - Reasons for Judgment
Before
Sanderson J
Judgment delivered 2000-08-16

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CAUSE NO: 262/00 BETWEEN: TERK T. AND: DEVAN DO AND: WILDMAS DATE: 15th August, 2000 Appearances: William Helfretch for the Mr. Ramon Alberga Q.C. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE TERK MANUFACTURING SECOND DEFENDANT Plaintiff and Linda Dacosta for the Defendants E FENDERSON DEFENDANT On April 17th 2000, I, award in the Cayman Michigan on December amount of US$6,758.4 set aside the award REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Plainted an ex party order to the Plaintiff to enforce a Islands. The original arbitral award was grant- 3rd, 1999 in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

The Defendants applied to the U.S. District C and that application was dismissed on April 1 a foreign arbitral ed in the state of Defendants in the court in Michigan to 4th, 2000. The
Defendant then appea Appeals for the 6th Circuit On June 16th, 2000 I that I had granted on a right to commence ap- assets within the Caym an Islands. The Plaintiff has not yet done so but defendant's application to set aside April 17th. Therefore , since June 16th the Plainti or name execution proceedings against the De- han Islands. The Plaintiff has not yet done so but es Circuit Court of the ex parte order it has had the legal feelings and their rather, as a result of discussions between has agreed to a stay determination of the Ap- not however been able have brought this appl- The application for a s Arbitral Awards Law ( aside the arbitral awar- Rule 1 of the Grand Cn counsel and the Court at the conclusion of the of execution of the proceedings in the Cayman Seal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. I shall to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to agree upon the appropriate terms of the st- cation so the Court may impose those terms. lay has not been brought pursuant to section 7 (2) 1997 Revision) because the U.S. Courts have not and there. Rather, this application would have to d court Rules or alternatively under the Courts inherent hearing in June, it stands, pending a The parties have ay and as a result (f) of the Foreign sustained or set all under Order 47 ent jurisdiction to stay its own orders in t The question is unde execution of a foreign stay is granted, upon n cases or other authori- ne appropriate circumstances. he what circumstances, if any, should this Court arbitral award properly enforceable in the Cayma- what terms. I was advised by counsel that there les which would assist the Court. It is clear how-
to Order 47 Rule 1 th imposing appropriate 819). The Plaintiff is prima facie the Plaintiff of that enti- erms (see The Supreme Court Practice 1999 St. rity and Maxwell p. award. To deprive 3

The another;

That (1) the (2) if an appeal in the foreign proceedings is not frivolous, her way that it has some reasonable prospect of the Defendant is able to provide security in the am- or the Defendant is unable to provide security in the ward but has some real and substantial assets and ought he will obey any injunction granted, then put that he will obey any injunction granted, then joined from disposing of or dissipating his assets necessary to meet his ordinary, usual and reasonable or vexatious. Put success, and; amount of the award; amount of the he should be except as le expenses and obligations, including reasonable legal fees; This Court may th However, if the De- normally not exercis- ing arbitral award. the Court would ing a stay.
Having reviewed the facts rivolous or vexatious or persuaded that it will prob- Turning to the 2nd branch assets here , to provide U.S.$500,000.00 in liquidi- tion of the assets of the Defendant as set forth herein. I do not conclude that the Defen- dant has no reasonable prospect of success, but, in my judgement, is not re- that it has no reasonable prospect of success, plied successfully for the award. He does assets plus two unencumbered properties in the 4 endant's appeal is s. I may not be quired. not have sufficient assets approximately e Cayman Islands. Accordingly, I order that the appeal by the United States Court, upon the following

That the 1st here ex- (a) up- (b) up-

That within the execution proceedings here be stayed until the Circuit Court of Appeal for the Sixth District of forms; " Defendant be enjoined from disposing of, or dis- ot: to the amount of US$8,500 per month for neces- sary living expenses and, to the amount of $75,000.00 for payment of reas- 21 days the 1st Defendant file an affidavit disclosing dismissal of the urther order of this stipating his assets ary and onable legal fees. sing; (a) all (b) as C of his assets in the Cayman Islands and, time table for the appeal proceedings in the United Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.
3.Costs of t appeal pr Dated this (6 day of Augu ist, 2000. Dale Sanderson Judge of the Grand Court 5 unsuccessful, in the

Find similar