Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

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

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
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
  • London
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

Applications in the Cayman Islands: Court tackles exceptional circumstances within the context of late evidence

Litigants have conduct of their own case and must be responsible for the steps that they do or do not take. This includes the timely filing and/or service of evidence. Absent evidential material or agreed factual material demonstrating that there are exceptional circumstances behind late filing or service of evidence, leave to adduce it may well be refused.

That is the recent ruling of Justice McMillan in Kosmos Capital Pty Ltd v Turiya Ventures Ltd, where, following the completion by Defendant’s counsel of his submissions, the Plaintiff made an application to adduce further evidence in support of its case.

Paragraph 4 of the Financial Services Division Guide, which sets out the applicable principles concerning the exchange of evidence in lengthy applications, provides for a timetable of the exchange of evidence that “may be abridged or extended by agreement between the parties or abridged or extended by the Court, save that no evidence may be filed or served less than 5 clear business days before the hearing date without the leave of the Court. Such leave will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” If a party wishes to file evidence less than 5 clear business days before the hearing, it is open to the Court to re-list and, if appropriate, make appropriate costs orders (including wasted costs orders).

On the facts there was no acceptable evidence, or even identifiable evidence, that exceptional circumstances had arisen. Accordingly leave to adduce would not be granted.

It is worth noting that the Plaintiff had also advanced an alternative argument to the effect that if the Court was minded not to grant leave, it would be appropriate instead to grant an adjournment (subject to a costs regime) in order to enable the Plaintiff to seek to satisfy the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances. Given the complexity of the case and possible permutations of taking such a course, the Court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant such an adjournment. The Judge noted, in this respect, that it would have been possible for the Plaintiff simply to abandon the application and “start again with its tackle in order”. That the Plaintiff had chosen not to do so was a matter for the Plaintiff.

Applications in the Cayman Islands: Court tackles exceptional circumstances within the context of late evidence

Leave A Comment