Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Re-opening a trial with further evidence in the Cayman Islands

In the recent case of In the matter of Shanda Games Limited FSD 14 OF 2016 (NSJ)(July 2017) it was held by Justice Segal that the Court has jurisdiction to admit new evidence and order a further hearing (and thereby re-open the trial) after the trial and after the Court has handed down its judgment in draft, before the sealing of the Court’s order (any appeal would be against the order of the Court and not the judgment). 

However, in the circumstances, the Learned Judge declined to do so. The test to be applied in the Cayman Islands is (citing the Supreme Court in L-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Power to Revise Judgment) [2013] UKSC 8, [2013] 1 WLR 634; Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 230; Vringo Infrasturcture Inc v ZTE (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 214; and Malitskiy v Stockman Interhold SA BVIHC 2015/0008):

  1. The principle to be applied generally is the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This involves dealing with cases expeditiously and fairly and allocating an appropriate share of the Court's resources to a dispute.

  2. In cases involving an application to call new evidence and have a new trial, the Court should take into account the leading case of Ladd v Marshall.  In the case of applications before the trial judge rather than the Court of Appeal, the Ladd v Marshall factors should be applied more leniently. Other “powerful factors” in the applicant’s favour would be needed to justify the application.

  3. In the present case the summons to re-open was issued shortly before the draft judgment was received by counsel, however, the Learned Judge had completed the draft judgment and reached a decision on the petition. The handing down of a judgment in draft does not of itself preclude the granting of the application or determine how the Court should exercise the jurisdiction. Once the judgment has been handed down then a further issue arises, namely the question of reconsideration and the impact of depriving a successful party of a judgment already rendered needed to be taking into account when the Court is applying the overriding objective.

  4. In order to justify re-opening the trial and allowing further expert evidence to be introduced the Petitioner must show (in the absence of fraud) that the problems with the expert witness evidence are sufficiently serious such that the Court’s decision cannot stand.

 

Leave A Comment