Hull J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CA
BEFORE THE HON MR JUSTICE HULL
IN CHAMBERS
CAUSE NO: 268 OF 1987
IN THE MATTER OF
SECTION 3A OF THE
PRESERVATION LAW.
Mr. Ritch for the applicant.
Miss Brooks for the Attorney-Gen.
Reas.
The applicant is the petit
are pending before this Court.
Some months ago, in one of
AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO
maintenance proceedings suit, her MAN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO
CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS
AMENDED.
DEC 1987
eral.
ons for Order
concerning matrimonial proceedings which
those proceedings, she applied for
whband opposed that application.
After a fairly lengthy hearing of
favour. This was based on my fi-
and needs, and those of her hus-
She has now come back before
3A of the Confidential Relations-
her to use in the matrimonial p-
discovered in the matrimonial ho-
affidavit, she says this:
"That I have in my pos-
which consist of , into
relating to the finan-
Most of these docu-
closet of our condomin-
deserted the matrimoni-
Since the hearing, she has
been advised that the informa-
made an order pending suit in her
tion and.
e me seeking directions under section
hips (Preservation) Law 1979 enabling
proceeding information which she says she
me. In paragraph 8 of her supporting,
session several files of documents
r allia, confidential information
r all affairs of myself and my husband,
s were discovered by me in the owner's
lium, about two months after my husband
allegedly"
changed lawyers. She says that she has
n has a material bearing on the question
of maintenance pending suit and
greater than that which was await-
has failed to make full and free
says that unless she is allowed
will, ultimately, be denied her
periodic or lump sum payments".
that she has a claim for an amount far
ded to her. She says that her husband
k disclosure of his means, and she also
just claim for "maintenance and for
n the suits.
To her affidavit she has
tative sample of the documents
Mr. Rich said it was his
related to the parties' joint
business own property. He
- 2 -
annexed what she describes as a represen-
tative of the information.
client's case that some of the information
property but some of it concerned the
desired were in evidence but the
respondent would never consent
3A were necessary. It was rel-
Miss Brooks submitted that
joint property, the applicant
under section 3A was necessary
the Attorney-General did not or
was involved and regarded it s
rested on the husband to show
Mr. Rich in reply said to
there was a risk that he would
to be able to apply for an inj
any information about third pa-
It is not readily apparent
to this and so directions under section
the information is relevant,
evant and admissible evidence.
Insofar as the information related to
was a principal so that no application
In relation to the other information,
consider that any question of public policy
simply as a matrimonial matter. The burden
why it ought not to be disclosed.
at if the husband knew of the application
dissipate assets. The petitioner wished
insofar. The information did not disclose
that if the husband knew of the applica-
tion, The information did not disclose
tion, The information did not disclose
from the exhibits themselves that all of
To the extent that it is obviously there
is a question so far as the or
the petitioner ought to have rele-
may of course also be relevant.
There is nothing on the E
that the information relates to
application, the petitioner is
if she knows that it does. She
her husband is in the banking
not in fact reveal anything ab-
As between the husband and
prima facie, confidential info-
Accordingly, on the evidence a
held that I have no jurisdiction
it follows that so far as the
ter pending suit is concerned, as to whether
taken steps to adduce it then. However, it
to use them.
taken steps to adduce it then. However, it
to the final disposal of ancillary matters.
ice of the documents themselves to show
third persons. This being an ex parte
under a strict duty to tell the court
does not say that it does. Although
business, the documents on their face do
but third persons.
I wife, I do not consider that this is,
modern to which the Law applies.
identified before me on this application I
petitioner is concerned, she is at liberty
on to give directions under section 3A.
to give directions under section 3A.
David Hull
Puisne Judge
9 December 1987.