IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA TRUST COMPANY LIMITED (JAMAICA) LIMITED LIMITED (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
|
|
- Bryan O’Neal’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CLAIM NO CD BETWEEN FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND DELROY HOWELL 1 ST DEFENDANT AND KENARTHUR MITCHELL 2 ND DEFENDANT AND FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN (JAMAICA) LIMITED 3 RD DEFENDANT AND FIRST FINANCIAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED 4 TH DEFENDANT AND AND FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN LIMITED FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED 5 TH DEFENDANT 6 TH DEFENDANT Mr Michael Hylton Q.C., Mrs Nicole Foster-Pusey, Mr Kevin Powell, Mr Sudiata Gibbs instructed by Michael Hylton and Associates for the Claimant Mr Paul Beswick and Mr G. Anthony Levy instructed by G. Anthony Levy & Co. for the 1 st Defendant. Lord Anthony Gifford, Mr Conrad George and Ms Noelle Nicole Walker instructed by Hart, Muirhead Fatta for the 2 nd, 3 rd and 5 th Defendants. Mr Richard Small and Mr David Batts instructed by Livingston Alexander and Levy for the 4 th and 6 th Defendants. Mrs Nicole Foster-Pusey for Michael Hylton and Michael Hylton & Associates. IN CHAMBERS
2 2 Civil Procedure - Application to strike out claim as an abuse of the process of the court Whether officer of company authorised to instruct that claim be filed on its behalf Civil Procedure Application to set aside freezing order Whether Claimant guilty of material for non-disclosure Dispute as to authority of company official authorizing undertaking as to damages - Whether undertaking is valid Attorney-at-Law Dispute as to authority of company official authorizing filing of claim - Whether attorney-at-law liable for damages for filing action on behalf of Claimant BROOKS, J. 23, 24 September and 1 October 2010 Mr Delroy Howell is the founder of a number of companies. Some of them may be conveniently described as belonging to the First Financial Group. First Financial Caribbean Trust Company Ltd. (the claimant) is one of those companies. The claimant has however accused Mr. Howell and another of its directors, Mr. Kenarthur Mitchell, of improperly using/and or accounting for, trust monies held by it. It has therefore brought this claim against Messrs Howell and Mitchell as well as four of the other companies in the First Financial group, namely First Financial Caribbean (Jamaica) Ltd., First Financial International Group Ltd., First Financial Caribbean Ltd. and First Financial Caribbean (Holdings) Ltd. The claimant seeks to recover, what it says, are trust monies improperly removed from its direct control. It also seeks damages and other consequential orders.
3 3 The defendants, although not yet having filed a defence, have, through Mr. Howell, asserted that all the trust monies have been properly invested and can be accounted for. That dispute is, however, not the main subject of this judgment. The defendants also assert that the management of the claimant has been improperly usurped by the persons who have given the instructions to file the instant claim. The dispute at this stage involves a number of issues, at the centre of which, is a freezing order which the claimant secured on 19 August 2010, against the defendants. The defendants have applied to set aside the freezing order and to strike out the claim. They do so, on a number of bases. The decision to be made at this stage is whether to accede to those applications. The main issues involved, in arriving at that decision, turn on whether the person(s) who have authorised the filing of the claim, on behalf of the claimant, were authorised so to do; whether they should have disclosed, at the time of applying for the freezing order, the means by which they claim that authority; and whether the undertaking as to damages, given by the company, should be accepted. There are certain subsidiary matters to be considered under those main points and I will address them individually. Before considering those issues, however, it is first requisite to outline the background circumstances leading to this claim being filed.
4 4 The background The claimant is incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands and has its registered office in that jurisdiction. The background to the claim is that the claimant succeeded a company called Leadenhall Bank and Trust Company Ltd. as the holder of certain trust assets, including cash deposits, which deposits totalled approximately US$14,000, It appears that the trust was in fact a composite of a number of smaller trusts. The beneficiaries (numbering approximately 5,000) of each of the individual trusts had invested various sums which, together, funded all the trust assets. In March 2002, the claimant and Leadenhall entered into an agreement, the terms of which were engrossed in a Deed of Retirement, Appointment and Indemnity. By that deed, Leadenhall should have surrendered the trust assets to the claimant. Later that year, the claimant filed a claim in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas against Leadenhall Bank to enforce the agreement. Sometime after the claim was filed, Leadenhall transferred various amounts of the trust money to the claimant. In August 2008, the Bahamian Supreme Court made an order, by and with the consent of the parties to that claim. By that order Leadenhall would transfer the remainder of the trust assets to the claimant. Also by the order,
5 5 the claimant was authorized to make a first distribution on a pro rata basis to all Beneficiaries in the amount of [US]$9.8 million, representing 70% of the sum of approximately [US]$14 million held by the Plaintiff as Trustee in accordance with [a specified] Schedule of Distribution. Finally, for these purposes, it should be noted that the order also stipulated that upon the final distribution of all the Assets to the Beneficiaries this action shall stand dismissed. The monies have not been so distributed. There is, however, evidence of trust monies being transferred from the claimant s accounts, to Mr Howell, First Financial (Caribbean) Jamaica Ltd., First Financial Caribbean (Holdings) Ltd., First Financial International Group Ltd. and other persons and entities, respectively. In one case, Messrs. Howell and Mitchell, in a letter dated March , written on First Financial Caribbean (Jamaica) Ltd s. letterhead, directed National Commercial Bank to encash a million (presumably US) dollar investment held for the claimant, wire $975, (again presumably US dollars) of it to an account held by Mr Howell in Bank of America and wire US$25, to an account held by First Financial Caribbean (Jamaica) Ltd. By a letter dated January 29, 2010, Galanis Bain, a firm of chartered accountants retained by the claimant, wrote to Ms. Judith Wilchcombe, Vice
6 6 President of Operations & Business Development of the claimant, requesting answers to a number of questions. These questions were mainly aimed at the use of the trust funds. They queried the identities of the entities and persons to whom various sums of the trust money were transferred and asked about the instruments in which the investments were held. According to the auditors, the Turks and Caicos Financial Services Commission (FSC), a statutory agency regulating the claimant, was concerned about the slow pace of the audits for the unfiled (sic) years. The auditors expressed their desire to move swiftly to bring [the claimant] back into compliance with [the FSC s] audit requirements. To date, those questions have not been formally answered. Miss Wilchcombe deposed that, in the face of angry clients demanding their money back, she requested and demanded of Mr Howell and the other directors, the information and the return of the monies. She says that she also demanded the delivery of a title to a building situated at 6 Dumfries Road in Jamaica, which was registered in the name of the claimant. She says that she was either ignored, given inadequate answers or told that, as a mere employee, she had no right to ask such questions of directors. The response by Mr Mitchell to several questions, as to whether monies paid to other companies in the First Financial Group were loans,
7 7 was, I am not sure, you need to get further information, I only wired these funds as per instructions. In answer to the question, Are the monies wired directly to Delroy Howell loans to Delroy Howell, Mr Mitchell gave the following curious response, PAYMENT TO DELROY HOWELL. I am not sure what these funds were used for, I just follow instructions as per letters signed by myself and Delroy (see dated 19 January 2010). Miss Wilchcombe also sought to demonstrate that Mr Howell was also approached by persons outside of the claimant s management. According to her, the auditors encouraged Mr Mitchell to provide the information. She exhibited letter dated June 30, 2010, which the auditors wrote to Mr Mitchell, concerning the bank statements and records of the Trust Investments that [he] managed in Jamaica. In that letter the auditors state, among other things: The management of [the claimant] has advised us that you have ceased cooperating in providing any financial information to the [claimant] regarding the Trust Assets under your management. This is a serious issue for you as the manager of the Trust Assets and hope that you would cooperate by providing the information required to complete the aforementioned audits and disclose the current whereabouts of the Trust Assets. Miss Wilchcombe also exhibited a letter dated 8the March 2010, written by an attorney-at-law, who had acted on behalf of the claimant in the claim against Leadenhall. In that letter, the attorney-at-law pointed out to
8 8 Mr Howell that all issues, which had previously prevented the payment of the trust monies, had been resolved. He also stated that the beneficiaries were becoming agitated and annoyed at the process and the delays that have ensued in returning the funds ordered by the Court. The scenario described by Miss Wilchcombe, is that trust monies had been transferred to directors and other companies in the First Financial Group with no clear accounting as to the reasons for the various transfers and no indication as to what assets secured these transfers. In exacerbation of that situation, there was a failure or refusal to take such steps as were necessary to pay the beneficiaries as was required by the consent order made by the Bahamian Supreme Court. This type of behaviour was precisely that which Mr Howell had accused Leadenhall of, when the claimant complained to the Bahamian court. He said, at paragraph 6 of one of his affidavits filed in that claim: That the Defendant as the former Trustee had a legal obligation to ensure that the corpus of the trust was accounted for and that the same was truly and accurately reflected in the Deed At paragraph 32 of another affidavit filed in that claim he said: That it is critical for this Honourable Court to compel the Defendant to disclose the whereabouts of the trust assets and to compel the Defendant to hand over the same forthwith
9 9 According to Miss Wilchcombe, in order to protect the claimant she took action. What occurred after January 2010, with respect to the claimant s management structure, is also the subject of serious dispute. I shall refer to it later in this judgment. The result, however, was that, in the absence of Mr Howell (the majority shareholder and one of the three directors) and Mr Mitchell, a shareholders meeting and a directors meeting were respectively held; purportedly convened by the only other director and shareholder, Dr Joseph Marzouca. Miss Wilchcombe attended these meetings, purportedly as the proxy of Dr Marzouca. She and a recording secretary were the only persons recorded as being present. At the end of those meetings, Dr Marzouca s shares had been transferred to Miss Wilchcombe, the shareholding of the claimant had been increased, Miss Wilchcome had become the majority shareholder and she and a Mr José Vargas had been appointed the claimant s sole directors. They were subsequently approved as such by the FSC. Miss Wilchcombe asserts that she authorized the filing of the instant claim, when it was publicized that certain companies in the First Financial Group were in the process of selling a money remittance business (Quikcash), operated by them. According to Miss Wilchcombe, she feared that the assets being sold, represented the investment of trust monies and that
10 10 the proceeds of sale would be dissipated, if a freezing order were not obtained. That order was made on 19 August It is this freezing order and the claim grounding it, that the defendants seek to have respectively, discharged and struck out. The claim The claim form reveals that, as against Messrs Howell and Mitchell, the claimant demands the sum of US$13,911,092.15, damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and fraud, and mesne profits for the use of a condominium property (BayRock) located in the Bahamas. That property was purchased with trust monies, but was bought in the name of First Rock Ltd. Miss Wilchcombe asserts that First Rock is owned and controlled by Mr Howell and/or Mr Mitchell. (The claimant had, before filing the instant claim, secured the BayRock property and sold it, under the authority of the new directors.) As against Mr Howell, Mr Mitchell and First Financial Caribbean (Jamaica) Ltd., the claimant sought in its claim, possession of the Dumfries Road property and recovery of the title in respect of same. Mesne profits were also claimed in respect of this property. The claim against all the defendants, jointly and severally, among other things, is for the handing over of all files, correspondence, documents
11 11 and assets belonging to the Claimant or to which it is entitled, as well as for restitution, for and by reason of unjust enrichment. The application to set aside the freezing order and to strike out The defendants have based their criticism of the proceedings on five main platforms. The proceedings were brought without the authority of the Claimant The first criticism is that Miss Wilchcombe and Mr Vargas have no authority to institute the claim on behalf of the claimant. Mr Howell has pointed to the procedure by which control of the company was wrested from him and has asserted that it is patently dishonest. The result, he says, is that Miss Wilchcombe and Mr Vargas are not directors of the company and cannot properly instruct attorneys at law to file a claim on behalf of the company. As a consequence, submitted learned counsel on behalf of the respective defendants, the claim is an abuse of the process of the court and ought to be struck out. Learned counsel relied on Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 in support of their submissions. They also sought to distinguish the cases of British Asbestos Co v Boyd [1903] 2 Ch 439 and Khalid Atig v David Stanley Hardy et al 2001 WL (delivered 8 November 2001), cited by Mr Hylton, Q.C., for the claimant. The
12 12 distinction, learned counsel submitted, is that what Miss Wilchcombe did were not genuine, but rather, dishonest acts. As a subsidiary point the defendants assert that if the claim had been brought without authority then Miss Wilchcombe and Mr Vargas would be personally liable for the costs and the damage occasioned by the claim and the freezing order, respectively. In addition, say the defendants, the attorneys-at-law who acted on those unauthorized instructions would also be liable to the defendants. In respect of the liability of the attorneys-at-law, Mr Beswick, acting on behalf of Mr Howell, cited the case of Danish Mercantile Co. Ltd v Beaumont [1951] 1 All ER 925, and in particular, a quote from the judgment of Jenkins LJ at page 930, in support of his submissions. I am of the view that it is unnecessary for me to undertake an investigation of those issues. I find that, the claimant being a company which is incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands, the issue ought to be resolved in that jurisdiction. By extension of that reasoning, the issue of the retention of the attorneys-at-law who acted for the claimant should abide the decision of that court. Although there is a dispute of fact concerning whether Mr Howell was given notice of the meetings mentioned above, there are matters of law to be
13 13 resolved in resolving the issue of whether the meetings lawfully achieved their purported purpose, and whether the persons taking control of the company could properly bring a claim in its name. In fact, Mr Howell has already filed a claim in the Turks and Caicos Islands, in respect of all those matters. It is also not insignificant, that the claimant had secured an opinion from its attorneys-at-law in the Turks and Caicos Islands, that the transactions in the respective meetings were effective in achieving what they purported to do. I also find that whoever was in charge of the claimant was entitled, if not obliged, to institute the claim to, at least have a proper accounting of the use of the trust monies. This arises, firstly, from the fact that the main issue raised by the claim, is the misuse or, at least, the improper accounting for the use of trust monies and secondly, from the ample prima facie evidence that those monies have been in the hands of Mr Howell, Mr Mitchell and at least two of the other companies in the group. The claimant failed to give notice of the application for the freezing order Mr Beswick submitted that the defendants ought to have been given notice of the application for the freezing order. He submitted that there was nothing urgent about the application, or at least the claimant had unreasonably waited until the sale of Quikcash was imminent, before it took
14 14 steps to secure the freezing order. Learned counsel concluded that the claimant ought not to have been granted ex parte orders and that the orders obtained are irregular and improperly obtained and should be set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr Beswick cited the dicta of their Lordships at paragraph 13 of the decision of the Privy Council in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd. v Olint Corp. Ltd. PCA 61 of 2008 (delivered 28 April 2009). There their Lordships, in advocating the case for applications for injunctions to be heard with notice, said: First, there appears to have been no reason why the application for an injunction should have been made ex parte, or at any rate, without some notice to the bank. Although the matter is in the end one for the discretion of the judge, audi alterem partem is a salutary and important principle. Their Lordships therefore consider that a judge should not entertain an application of which no notice has been given unless either giving notice would enable the defendant to take steps to defeat the purpose of the injunction (as in the case of a Mareva or Anton Piller order) or there has been literally no time to give notice before the injunction is required to prevent the threatened wrongful act. These two alternative conditions are reflected in rule 17.4(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules Their Lordships would expect cases in the latter category to be rare, because even in cases in which there was no time to give the period of notice required by the rules, there will usually be no reason why the applicant should not have given shorter notice or even made a telephone call. Any notice is better than none. (Emphasis supplied) I find that Mr. Beswick is not on firm ground in applying the principle, of notice being required, to this case. Their Lordships had expressly cited Mareva orders (freezing orders) as one exception to the
15 15 general rule. The statement, at this stage of the jurisprudence, that this type of application is of an exceptional nature, needs no expansion. I reject, as untenable, Mr Beswick s submission that, for these purposes, there is no difference in the approach between a freezing order and an ordinary injunction. The claimant is guilty of material non-disclosure in securing the freezing order The third complaint which the defendants make is that Miss Wilchcombe was guilty of material non-disclosure when she deposed in support of the application for the freezing order. The areas of non-disclosure identified in the application to strike out, filed on behalf of Mr Howell, are: 7. i) The Claimant had an issued share capital of only US$100.00; ii) iii) iv) The Claimant had only US$300, in loan capital which loan was made to the company by [Mr Howell] and of which US$250, was required to be deposited by the company in a commercial bank in order for it to retain its licence in the Turks and Caicos as a Trust Company. This sum was lost with the collapse of the TCI Bank Ltd. earlier in That the Directors of the Claimant, Delroy Howell, Dr. Joseph Marzouca, and Kenarthur Mitchell had not held a directors Meeting during the year 2010; That the transfer of 20 of the 100 issued shares in the Claimant company given by Dr. Marzouca to Judith Wilchcombe had never been approved by the Directors of the Claimant as is required by the Articles of Association of the Claimant;
16 16 iv) vi) vii) That there had never been a lawfully convened meeting of the shareholders of the Claimant to elect Judith Wilchcombe to the board of Directors and that she had never been lawfully elected or appointed to the Board of the Claimant company; That when Judith Wilchcombe swore the Affidavit of Judith Wilchcombe in support of the application for ex parte Freezing Order on the 18 th August 2010 and stated that she was a director of the Claimant trust company and that she was duly authorised to make the affidavit that she lied and perjured herself; That Christopher Donnachie, to whom she refers in Paragraph 14 of her said Affidavit is a convicted felon having been convicted of extortion in Nassau by Justice Hugh Small and that Donnachie is one of the persons who now signs on the Claimant s bank account having been authorised by her so to do 8 The Claimant is guilty of material non-disclosure in that in its application it failed to disclose that [it] has no money or assets of its own to meet the damages nor to meet the costs incurred by the Defendants. In his oral submissions, Mr Beswick added to that list of allegations of non-disclosure. He referred to the fact that Miss Wilchcombe failed to disclose that Dr Marzouca had, in fact, signed an instrument of transfer of his shares and had tendered a letter of resignation as a director, at least six weeks before Dr Marzouca purported to send out notices convening meetings of the directors and of the shareholders. Mr Beswick also accused Miss Wilchcome of failing to inform the court that she and Mr Howell had had a relationship other than that of mere company associates. He pointed to
17 17 some correspondence between the two, which, Mr Beswick suggested, may indicate a motivation for revenge rather than the protection of the interests of the claimant. Finally, Mr Beswick submitted that Miss Wilchcombe was guilty of non-disclosure when she failed to disclose that the BayRock property was sold for far less than it was worth. Learned counsel submitted that these transgressions by Miss Wilchcombe were not born out of inadvertence or innocence. By way of example, he stressed that in failing to disclose the fact that the claimant had very little assets of its own, was something which, if it had been disclosed, would have alerted the court that its undertaking as to damages was virtually worthless. That, Mr Beswick submitted, constitutes an instance of material non-disclosure sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the orders granted [in respect of the injunction]. Mr Beswick cited, among others on the point, the important case of Brinks Mat Ltd v Elcombe et. al [1988] 3 All ER 188; [1988] 1 WLR In Brinks Mat Ltd, Ralph Gibson, L.J. summarized the principles guiding the court in considering whether an injunction ought to be discharged for nondisclosure of material facts. That summary was approved by our Court of Appeal in Jamculture Ltd v Black River Upper Morass Ltd and another
18 18 (1989) 26 J.L.R. 244 and, in the context of the Civil Procedure Rules (2002) ( the CPR ), the more recent case of San Souci Ltd v VRL Services Ltd SCCA No. 108 of 2004 (delivered 18 November 2005). One of the principles, accepted as valid by the Court of Appeal, is that a party who derives an advantage from failing to fully disclose should be deprived of that advantage. Ralph Gibson LJ, in that helpful judgment, pointed out that the discharge of injunctions which are secured without full and frank disclosure also serves as a deterrent to ensure that persons who make ex parte applications realise that they have this duty of disclosure and of the consequence (which may include a liability for costs) if they fail in that duty. Lord Gifford Q.C. for the 2 nd, 3 rd and 5 th Defendants and Mr Richard Small for the 4 th and 6 th Defendants adopted Mr Beswick s submissions and supplemented them with submissions made in similar vein. Mr Hylton Q.C., on behalf of the claimant sought to resist the application. Mr Hylton submitted that there was no material non-disclosure. Learned Queen s Counsel argued that: a. It cannot be non-disclosure to not have stated that Miss Wilchcombe is not a director or that there had never been a lawfully convened meeting; because those are not facts; they are arguments and among the issues raised in the application.
19 19 b. [Miss Wilchcombe] acted on the advice of the Claimant s corporate services provider and had been recognized and approved as a director by the [FSC]. c. it cannot be a material non-disclosure to not state that the company s undertaking as to damages is inadequate, since that is not a fact accepted by the Claimant. This too is merely an argument d. the company s share capital was irrelevant to the issue before the court on the application for the injunction. It could have had no bearing on the court s decision to grant or refuse the injunction and could not be considered a material fact. Although I am concerned that there was no disclosure of the fact of the earlier resignations by Dr Marzouca and the fact that the claimant had no assets of any significance of its own, to support an undertaking as to damages, I accept Mr Hylton s submissions that the claimant had reasonable explanations for failing to disclose those factors. The first, I find, is that Miss Wilchcombe had a letter of opinion, which she did disclose, indicating that the company s meetings did achieve their purpose, and secondly the question of the propriety of the reliance on trust monies as support for an undertaking as to damages is a matter of law. Before me, there have been powerful submissions on both sides of the divide, as to whether such monies could properly be so used. In my view, I need not decide that point in this
20 20 case, but it does provide the claimant with a justification for failing to disclose its lack of its own assets. I find that there has been no material non-disclosure by the claimant in securing the without-notice freezing order. The order should be discharged because the cross-undertaking in damages is worthless The issue as to the validity of the claimant s undertaking as to damages has been hinted at above. Lord Gifford Q.C. referred to the general practice of requiring an undertaking as to damages. This requirement is reinforced by rule 17.4 (2) of the CPR. It is even more critical in the case of a freezing order which, unlike an ordinary prohibitory injunction, is most likely to have an adverse financial impact on the party to which it is aimed. In my view, however, the circumstances of this case, not only warrant the claimant being excused from giving an undertaking as to damages, but also from posting security for costs. I posit this view on the fact that Mr Howell in his third affidavit outlined how a large portion of the trust monies were used. He said, in part: 3. Over the years I have made several investments for the Claimant Trust company which include: (i) The payment of US$1,100, to UEB bank to pay to beneficiaries of the Trust Company.
21 21 (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) US$1,000, was placed on deposit in Belize Bank Limited which was used to pay Mastercard the amounts owing to Mastercard by the Trust. US$970, used to purchase condominium at Bay Roc, Nassau (which condominium was recently sold at a loss by Miss Wilchcombe without the authority of the Board of Directors). US$453, was used to pay on account of the purchase price of 6 Dumfries Road, which property is registered in the name of the Claimant. US$9,000, was invested for 20% ownership in Ocean Bay Jamaica Limited which company is the sole shareholder in Ocean Chimo Limited which owns premises known as the Hilton/Wyndham Hotel, Kingston, Jamaica. US$1,400, was invested in Harbour House property in Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos Islands. These statements as to the investments were not supported by documentation. I take them at face value, as this is not a trial of the claim. I only need to say at this stage, firstly, that Mr Howell had ample opportunity to provide an explanation to the auditors as to the use of the trust monies and, on the claimant s case, failed and/or refused to do so. The second observation, that I think that I may properly make at this stage, is that the tone of the order made by the Supreme Court in the Bahamas did not seem to contemplate these types of investments. The order suggested that there would be prompt action and the need for cash. The
22 22 order required US$9.8 million to be paid out to the trustees as a first distribution. That payment should have been made from the US$14 million which the claimant received from Leadenhall. That some urgency was required is suggested by the fact that the disposal of the claim in that court was dependent on the distribution of all the assets of the trust. In my view, the claimant is entitled to pursue the recovery of these assets in order to comply with its obligations under the order made in the Supreme Court in the Bahamas. The subject matter makes the claim somewhat different from that of the usual commercial litigation. The court does have the discretion to waive the usual requirement for an undertaking as to damages. That discretion was exercised in favour of a claimant who was legally aided and unable to provide such an undertaking (see Allen v Jambo Holdings Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 1252). In Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organizations v Department of the Environment [2003] 1 WLR 2839; [2003] UKPC 63 Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe commented on the discretion. He said at paragraph 39: Both sides rightly submitted that (because the range of public law cases is so wide) the court has a wide discretion to take the course which seems most likely to produce a just result (or to put the matter less ambitiously, to minimise the risk of an unjust result). In the context Mr Clayton referred to the well-known decision of the Court of Appeal in Allen v Jambo Holdings [1980] 1 WLR 1252, which has had the result that in England a very large class of litigants (that is, legally assisted persons) are as a matter of course excepted from the need to give a crossundertaking in damages. However their Lordships (without casting any doubt on the practice initiated by that case) do not think that it can be taken too far. The
23 23 court is never exempted from the duty to do its best, on interlocutory applications with far-reaching financial implications, to minimise the risk of injustice. In Allen v Jambo Holdings Lord Denning MR said (at page 1257), "I do not see why a poor plaintiff should be denied a Mareva injunction just because he is poor, whereas a rich plaintiff would get it". On the facts of that case, that was an appropriate comment. But there may be cases where the risk of serious and uncompensated detriment to the defendant cannot be ignored. The rich plaintiff may find, if ultimately unsuccessful, that he has to pay out a very large sum as the price of having obtained an injunction which (with hindsight) ought not to have been granted to him. Counsel were right to agree (in line with all the authorities referred to above) that the court has a wide discretion. It seems to me, that in discharging the duty to do its best to minimise injustice in this case, the court should not shut out the claimant and prevent it from securing trust assets, which on the face of it, are being held by at least some of the defendants, merely because the claimant has insufficient assets of its own. The order should be discharged because the relevant trust assets can be accounted for and/or paid to the claimant and there is no danger of dissipation of the assets. Lord Gifford submitted that Mr Howell has explained the use of the trust assets and pointed to Mr Howell s third affidavit (detailing the expenditure of some of the trust monies) which has been referred to above. Learned Queen s Counsel submitted that there was a paper trail in respect of the use of the trust monies. In my view, however, that paper trail has not been clearly exhibited in the proceedings, thus far.
24 24 It should be pointed out at this stage, that by agreement of the parties and with the consent of the court, the sale of Quikcash, including the sale of the Dumfries Road premises was completed. The proceeds of sale of those premises have been paid to the claimant s attorneys at law pending the completion of this claim. It was the imminent sale of that asset which led the claimant to be apprehensive that there may be a move afoot to dissipate the assets of the trust. With that asset, or rather the proceeds thereof, now secured, there is, subject to further submissions which I will entertain concerning the extension of the freezing order, no other indication of there being a likely dissipation of the other assets. I am also concerned about the allegations which Mr Howell has made concerning Miss Wilchcombe s use of the proceeds of the sale of the BayRoc property to purchase other real property in other than the claimant s name. Miss Wilchcombe has denied those allegations, but it would seem that orders should be put in place to preserve the trust monies, as far as lies within this court s authority. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, I find that the claimant was entitled to bring and pursue this claim in this jurisdiction. The subject matter of the
25 25 claim, being trust monies, I find, would have compelled the management of the claimant, whoever personifies that infrastructure, to seek to secure the assets in order to perform the obligations placed on the claimant by the consent order entered into with Leadenhall. The questions of the claimant s shareholding and management are to be resolved by a court in the Turks and Caicos Islands. As far as the freezing order is concerned, I am not convinced that there was material non-disclosure and therefore I would not discharge the freezing order on that basis. It has come to an end by effluxion of time, however, and in light of the securing of the proceeds of sale of the asset, the threatened sale of which impelled the application for that order, I would like to hear further submissions as to whether the order should be further extended or renewed. I will extend it, only for the purposes of preserving the status quo, until those submissions may be made. Extensive arguments by experienced counsel featured in these applications and I am grateful to counsel for their industry and the clarity of the submissions. The orders, therefore, are as follows: 1. The respective applications by the Defendants to strike out the Claimant s claim are refused;
26 26 2. The freezing order made herein on 19 August 2010 by Cole-Smith J and varied on 3 September 2010 by McDonald-Bishop J is hereby extended to 5 October 2010; 3. The defendants shall be at liberty to file and serve, on or before 29 October 2010 their respective Statements of Defence; 4. The defendants shall, on or before 15 October 2010, disclose all documents concerning the use of monies taken by them, or any of them, or on their or any of their instructions, from the claimant s accounts held in banks or any other financial institution; 5. The claimant is relieved of its undertaking as to damages and is not required to make any payment as security for costs; 6. The monies representing the proceeds of sale of the Dumfries Road property shall be placed and held in an interest bearing account in a licensed financial institution in Jamaica in the name of the claimant s attorneys-at-law and shall not be dealt with in any manner until the determination of this claim or until further order of the court; 7. The monies representing the proceeds of sale of the BayRoc property shall be placed and held in an interest bearing account in a licensed financial institution in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the name of the claimant and shall not be dealt with in any manner until the determination of this claim or until further order of the court; 8. The decision on the issue of costs is reserved until 5 October 2010; 9. Leave to appeal granted to all the defendants.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION TRUST COMPANY LIMITED (JAMAICA) LIMITED LIMITED (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2010 CD 00086 BETWEEN FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND DELROY HOWELL 1 ST DEFENDANT AND KENARTHUR
More informationGUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN GUERNSEY
GUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN GUERNSEY CONTENTS PREFACE 2 1. The Mareva Injunction 3 2. When is a Mareva Injunction available? 3 3. Other factors for the Plaintiff to consider 4 4. The Terms of
More informationVIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, Arrangement of Sections
NO. 8 of 1990 VIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, 1990 Arrangement of Sections Sections 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART 1 Preliminary PART II Licences 3. Requirement of licence. 4. Application
More information[8] On 11 th May 2004, Mrs. Moir made application to the Family Court of Australia at Adelaide seeking final orders in relation to property
Re Nordea Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN Chancery Division Judgment date: 2 November 2009 His Honour Deemster Kerruish Introduction [1] By re-amended Petition,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01906 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER Claimants AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationGUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
GUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1. Cayman Islands Jurisdiction of Choice 2 2. When is a Mareva Injunction Available? 2 3. Other Factors for the Plaintiff to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 47 of 2011 CRAIG LAWRENCE WATERMAN AND APPLICANTS CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN SAMBRANO As Joint Receivers of Fresh Catch Belize Limited AND BELIZE ELECTRICITY
More informationA Case Study in Litigation in Support of Arbitration: China, England, and The Turks and Caicos Islands
This article was published in slightly different form in the September 2005 issue of Mealey s International Arbitration Report. A Case Study in Litigation in Support of Arbitration: China, England, and
More informationAgreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions
Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions In consideration of United Overseas Bank Limited (the Bank ) agreeing at the Applicant s request to issue the Banker s Guarantee, the Applicant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BT TRADING LIMITED GEORGE POPESCU ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 325 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2014 BETWEEN: KEVIN MILLIEN Claimant AND BT TRADING LIMITED GEORGE POPESCU ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED 1 st Defendant 2 nd Defendant 3 rd Defendant
More informationJUDGMENT. Assets Recovery Agency (Ex-parte) (Jamaica)
Hilary Term [2015] UKPC 1 Privy Council Appeal No 0036 of 2014 JUDGMENT Assets Recovery Agency (Ex-parte) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica before Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Carnwath Lord Hughes
More informationTHE COMPANIES ACT 2006 PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION BUCHANAN CASTLE GOLF CLUB LIMITED
THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION of BUCHANAN CASTLE GOLF CLUB LIMITED TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Definitions and interpretation... 1 2 Liability of members...
More informationState Owned Enterprises Act 1992
No. 90 of 1992 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Purposes 2. Commencement 3. Definitions 4. Subsidiary 5. Act to prevail 6. Act to bind Crown PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 STATUTORY CORPORATIONS: REORGANISATION
More informationTuesday, April 17th, 2018, 6:30 p.m. British Colonial Hilton Hotel, Governor s Ballroom Number One Bay Street, Nassau, N. P.
Tuesday, April 17th, 2018, 6:30 p.m. British Colonial Hilton Hotel, Governor s Ballroom Number One Bay Street, Nassau, N. P., The Bahamas FINANCE CORPORATION OF BAHAMAS LIMITED (A Company incorporated
More informationACN: CONSTITUTION
Hunter United Employees' Credit Union Ltd ACN: 087 650 182 CONSTITUTION Page 1 of 52 Contents Preamble... 5 Division 1 Introductory Matters... 6 1.1 Definitions... 6 1.2 Interpretation... 7 1.3 Time...
More informationThe attached model rulebook sponsored by National Community Land Trust Network named:
The attached model rulebook sponsored by National Community Land Trust Network named: Exempt charity model 2015 is confirmed as acceptable for use, for the time being, as a model set of rules for use by
More informationPART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220.
PART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220. Connected persons 221. Shadow directors 222. De facto director CHAPTER
More informationDirectors' Duties in Guernsey
Directors' Duties in Guernsey March 2018 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 This note provides a brief synopsis of the common law duties owed by directors of companies ("companies") incorporated in the Island of Guernsey
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2012/006 BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST and Appellants [1] THE DIRECTOR
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY CLAUSE 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Meaning of insolvent 4. Meaning of personal relationship
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011 Claim No: 386 ( NINA SOMKHISHVILI Claimant/Respondent ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( NIGG, CHRISTINGER & PARTNER Defendants/Applicants (YOSIF SHALOLASHVILI ( PALOR COMPANY
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2003
CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2002/20 IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2003 BETWEEN: SINEL TRUST ANGUILLA LTD. AND Claimant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANGUILLA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 CLAIM NO: 317 OF 2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT OF BELIZE APPLICANT AND 1.BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD 2.BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. 1 ST DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
More informationJUDGMENT. Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica)
Easter Term [2018] UKPC 12 Privy Council Appeal No 0011 of 2017 JUDGMENT Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica before Lord
More information...Vestia Community Trust
RULES of:...vestia Community Trust Registered under the Industrial & Provident Societies Act 1965 Register No....30870R... CONTENTS Part A A1 A2 A3-A4 Name and objects Name Objects Non-profit Part B B1-B3
More informationPARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT
PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD ABN 41 010 596 353 P O Box 3230 HELENSVALE TOWN CENTRE QLD 4212 128 Millaroo Drive GAVEN QLD 4211 Accounts: accounts@paradise-timbers.com.au Sales: sales@paradise-timbers.com.au
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN MARIA MOGUEL AND Claimant/Counter-Defendant CHRISTINA MOGUEL Defendant/Counter-Claimant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 24 th January 2008
Privy Council Appeal No 87 of 2006 Beverley Levy Appellant v. Ken Sales & Marketing Ltd Respondent FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GARY LEGGE AND MAUREEN LEGGE. Between CHRIS RAMSAWACK AND WESTERN SHIP AND RIG SUPPLIES LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV No. 2013-00249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GARY LEGGE 1 st Claimant AND MAUREEN LEGGE 2 nd Claimant Between CHRIS RAMSAWACK 1 st Defendant AND WESTERN SHIP AND RIG
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KENSINGTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND. MONTROW INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (In Provisional Liquidation)
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CLAIM NO. 41 OF 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KENSINGTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND MONTROW INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (In Provisional Liquidation) Applicant Respondent Appearances:
More informationFIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998
FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 IN exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 25 of the High Court Act, I hereby make the following Rules: Citation 1.
More informationArticles of Association of Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change Limited
The Companies Act 2006 Company Limited by Guarantee and not having a Share Capital Articles of Association of Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change Limited As adopted by special resolution on
More informationHOLIDAY COAST CREDIT UNION LTD ABN Constitution
HOLIDAY COAST CREDIT UNION LTD ABN 64 087 650 164 Constitution Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble... v Constitution... 1 Division 1. - Introductory Matters... 1 1.1 Definitions... 1 1.2 Interpretation...
More informationThe Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act
Page 1 of 17 Queen's Printer This is not an official version. For the official version, please contact Statutory Publications. Acts and Regulations > List of C.C.S.M. Acts Search the Acts Français Updated
More informationPART III POWERS OF INVESTIGATION 11. Special powers of investigation. 12. Power to obtain information. 13. Powers of search, and to obtain assistance.
CHAPTER 88 PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II OFFENCES 3. Bribery. 4. Bribery for giving assistance, etc., in regard to
More informationIN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE <CIVIL) A.D KEN RATTAN AND. Mr Marcus Peter Foster for the Applicant. Mr Michael Gordon for the Respondents
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE
More informationTHE NEVIS INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL FUNDS ORDINANCE, 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Preliminary. PART I Administration. PART II Public Funds
THE NEVIS INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL FUNDS ORDINANCE, 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation 3. Appointments 4. Delegation of power 5. Annual report 6. Records of the
More informationEQUITABLE REMEDIES IN COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: Concurrent session 1A Constructive trust
EQUITABLE REMEDIES IN COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: Concurrent session 1A Constructive trust LIMITATION PERIODS, DISHONEST ASSISTANCE, KNOWING RECEIPT AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS Thursday, 5 March 2015 for the Joint
More informationBERMUDA INVESTMENT BUSINESS ACT : 20
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA INVESTMENT BUSINESS ACT 2003 2003 : 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PART I PRELIMINARY Short title and commencement Interpretation Investment and investment
More informationMONEY SERVICES LAW. (2010 Revision) Law 13 of 2000 consolidated with Law 38 of 2002 and Law 35 of 2009.
Supplement No. 12 published with Gazette No. 23 of 8th November, 2010 MONEY SERVICES LAW (2010 Revision) Law 13 of 2000 consolidated with Law 38 of 2002 and Law 35 of 2009. Revised under the authority
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D MISS ERICA EDWARDS, CROWN COUNSEL OF ANGUILLA.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2009 Claim No. AXA HCV 2008/0094 BETWEEN: MISS ERICA EDWARDS, CROWN COUNSEL OF ANGUILLA Prosecutor/Respondent
More informationCHAPTER INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT
SAINT LUCIA CHAPTER 12.19 INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT Revised Edition Showing the law as at 31 December 2008 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority
More informationMFDA Investor Protection Corporation / Corporation de protection des investisseurs de l'acfm BY-LAW NUMBER 1
MFDA Investor Protection Corporation / Corporation de protection des investisseurs de l'acfm BY-LAW NUMBER 1 (as amended and consolidated as at May 27, 2015) BE IT ENACTED as a by-law of MFDA Investor
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and TREVOR PAYNTER WINDWARD PROPERTIES LIMITED
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 550 OF 1999 BETWEEN: HENRIK LINDVIG Plaintiff and TREVOR PAYNTER WINDWARD PROPERTIES LIMITED Appearances: B Commissiong Esq QC,
More informationRULES OF THE ALBANY EQUESTRIAN CENTRE ASSOCIATION INC ("CONSTITUTION")
ANNEXURE "A' Page 1 of 32 RULES OF THE ALBANY EQUESTRIAN CENTRE ASSOCIATION INC ("CONSTITUTION") ANNEXURE "A' Page 2 of 32 1. PRELIMINARY 1.1 Name of Association The name of the Association is: ALBANY
More informationBHP Steel Employee Share Plan Trust Deed
BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON L A W Y E R S BHP Steel Employee Share Plan Trust Deed BHP Steel Limited ABN 16 000 011 058 BHP Steel Share Plan Pty Ltd ACN 101 326 336 Dated 12 July 2002 Level 39 101 Collins Street
More informationConstitution of Scales Corporation Limited
Constitution of Scales Corporation Limited INTERPRETATION 1 Defined terms 1.1 In this constitution the following expressions have the following meanings: Act means the Companies Act 1993; Company means
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More information1.1 Any regulations made under the legislation containing standard articles of association do not apply to the Company.
Company Number: 1800000 COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES ARTICLES of ASSOCIATION of BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS public limited company (Adopted by a special resolution on 5 August 2010, as amended by a special
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2012-00772 BETWEEN KELVIN DOOLARIE AND FIELD 1 st Claimant RAMCHARAN 2 nd Claimant PROBHADAI SOOKDEO BISSESSAR 1 st Defendant RAMCHARAN 2
More informationConstitution for Pooled Super Pty Ltd ACN
Constitution for Pooled Super Pty Ltd ACN 142 516 005 Contents Table of contents 1 Preliminary 1 1.1 Definitions... 1 1.2 Interpretation... 2 1.3 Application of the Act... 2 1.4 Exercise of powers... 3
More informationIN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D MARSHALL S COMPANY LIMITED KINEA INTERNATIONAL S.A. AND KARINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED DEFENDANT AMIT HOTCHANDANI
IN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 873 of 2010 MARSHALL S COMPANY LIMITED KINEA INTERNATIONAL S.A. AND KARINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED MIKE HOTCHANDANI AMIT HOTCHANDANI (a.k.a. DANISH HOTCHANDANI)
More informationREPRESENTATION AGREEMENT
REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT This Contingent Fee Agreement for the performance of legal services and payment of attorneys' fees (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is between (hereinafter "Client")
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELECOM LTD. JEFFREY PROSSER. BEFORE the Honourable Abdulai Conteh, Chief Justice.
CLAIM NO. 185 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 BETWEEN: BELIZE TELECOM LTD. JEFFREY PROSSER BOBBY LUBANA Applicants/Claimants AND BELIZE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Respondent/Defendant BEFORE
More informationCONSTITUTION OF Australian Onion Industry Association Incorporated
CONSTITUTION OF Australian Onion Industry Association Incorporated REVISED 2017 Page 1 of 13 Contents 1. Name...3 2. Definitions...3 3. Interpretation...3 4. Objectives...4 5. Powers...4 6. Non-profit
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D (BRENT C. MISKUSKI SECOND DEFENDANT (DELIA MISKUSKI THIRD DEFENDANT JUDGMENT
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CLAIM NO. 186 OF 2007 BETWEEN (JOHN DIAZ CLAIMANT ( ( AND ( (IVO TZANKOV FIRST DEFENDANT (BRENT C. MISKUSKI SECOND DEFENDANT (DELIA MISKUSKI THIRD DEFENDANT
More informationSCS CONSTITUTION. c. All communications shall be sent to the Honorary Secretary at the Registered Place of Business.
SCS CONSTITUTION 1. Name and Registered Office a. The name of the society shall be the Singapore Computer Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society ). b. The registered place of business of the Society
More informationAPPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Trading Terms and Conditions are to be read and understood prior to the execution of the Application for Commercial Credit Account.
More informationCORPORATIONS ACT. Company Limited by Guarantee. Constitution SIMULATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED
CORPORATIONS ACT Company Limited by Guarantee Constitution of SIMULATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED 2 Corporations Act Company Limited by Guarantee CONSTITUTION OF SIMULATION AUSTRALLA LIMITED Definitions In this
More informationSAINT LUCIA. IN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIl) A.D Between: JUDCEMENT. Mr Kenneth Monplaisir, OC for the Plaintiff
... "i.,; ~ SAINT LUCIA IN THE HICH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIl) A.D. 1997 SUIT NO: 722 OF 1996 Between: CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES LTD PLAINTIFF AND DAMAR ENTERPRISES LTD AND DEFENDANT C. O. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION
More informationRESTATED BY LAWS OF W. E. HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I. OFFICES ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS
RESTATED BY LAWS OF W. E. HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. W. E. Homeowner s Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized to enforce the Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions for
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS Introduction 1. Traditionally, a central plank of an accountant s corporate work has been carrying out the audit. However, over the years the profession s role has
More informationSAMOA TRUSTEE COMPANIES ACT 1988
SAMOA TRUSTEE COMPANIES ACT 1988 Arrangement of Provisions PART 1 PRELIMINARY AND REGISTRATION OF TRUSTEE COMPANIES 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Application of this Act 5. Application
More informationDirectors Duties Handbook
Introduction This handbook has been prepared for directors of private limited companies to provide them with a summary of their duties under the Companies Act 2006 (2006 Act). This guide should not be
More informationAEROPOST TRINIDAD LIMITED PETER EDWARDS AND VINCY AVIATION SERVICES CARIBBEAN FREIGHT & COURIERS LTD. 2008: November, 17th November, 18th DECISION
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO: 368/2008 BETWEEN: AEROPOST TRINIDAD LIMITED PETER EDWARDS 1st applicant 2nd
More informationThe Companies Act Community Interest Company Limited by Shares. Articles of Association. Gawcott Fields Community Solar Project C.I.C.
The Companies Act 2006 Community Interest Company Limited by Shares Articles of Association of Gawcott Fields Community Solar Project C.I.C. 1 The Companies Act 2006 Community Interest Company Limited
More informationConstitution of Heartland Group Holdings Limited
Constitution of Heartland Group Holdings Limited 3572335 v1 CONTENTS 1. INTERPRETATION... 1 2. CONSTRUCTION... 1 3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSTITUTION AND RULES... 2 4. SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS... 2 5. DIRECTORS...
More informationVictorian Funds Management Corporation Act 1994
,; '< r" Victorian Funds Management Corporation Act 1994 Section 1. Purpose 2. Commencement 3. Definitions 4. Extra-territorial operation No. 61 of 1994 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 VICTORIAN
More informationSOCIETY ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER
1 of 66 24/03/2016 10:37 AM Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada License Disclaimer This Act has "Not in Force" sections. See the Table of Legislative Changes. SOCIETY ACT
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More informationCOMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATIONS AMENDMENT BILL, 2016
243 Communal Property Associations Act (28/1996): Communal Property Associations Amendment Bill, 2016 39943 STAATSKOERANT, 22 APRIL 2016 No. 39943 753 DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM NOTICE
More information2. On the 23 rd day of November 2001, the claimant obtained judgment in default of appearance against E. Payments Solutions Ltd.
ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ST. CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. SKBHCV 2003/0170 BETWEEN PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED CLAIMANT and THE ATTRONEY GENERAL DEFENDANT Appearances:
More informationTRUSTS (REGULATION OF TRUST BUSINESS) ACT 2001 BERMUDA 2001 : 22 TRUSTS (REGULATION OF TRUST BUSINESS) ACT 2001
BERMUDA 2001 : 22 TRUSTS (REGULATION OF TRUST BUSINESS) ACT 2001 [Date of Assent: 8 August 2001] [Operative Date: 25 January 2002] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PRELIMINARY 1 Short title and commencement 2 Interpretation
More informationSupplement No. 12 published with Gazette No. 22 of 24th October, DORMANT ACCOUNTS LAW. (2011 Revision)
Supplement No. 12 published with Gazette No. 22 of 24th October, 2011. DORMANT ACCOUNTS LAW (2011 Revision) Law 28 of 2010 consolidated with Law 41 of 2010. Revised under the authority of the Law Revision
More informationSPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT
SPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. In this agreement, the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned to them: 1.1 the senior counsel means Anthony Morris Q.C. of T. J. Ryan Chambers,
More informationRules of Regional Development Australia Townsville and North West Queensland Inc.
Rules of Regional Development Australia Townsville and North West Queensland Inc. Adopted at the Special General Meeting held on 18 December, 2017 via teleconference TABLE OF PROVISIONS TABLE OF PROVISIONS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2011/4632 BETWEEN VERNON BARNETT CLAIMANT AND THE PROMOTION ADVISORY BOARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationBERMUDA BANKS AND DEPOSIT COMPANIES ACT : 40
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA BANKS AND DEPOSIT COMPANIES ACT 1999 1999 : 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PRELIMINARY Short title and commencement Interpretation
More informationFuneral Planning Authority Rules
Funeral Planning Authority Rules 1. GENERAL 1.1 Interpretation In these Rules: "Appellant" means the party serving a Disciplinary Appeal Notice in accordance with Rule 7.9.1; "Applicant" means a person
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and :January 20,21,
ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL SUIT NO. SVGHCV211/1997 CONSOLIDATED WITH SUIT NO 212/1997 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ORMISTON KEN BOYEA HUDSON WILLIAMS Claimants and EASTERN CARIBBEAN
More informationINVESTMENT BUSINESS ACT 2003 BERMUDA 2003 : 20 INVESTMENT BUSINESS ACT 2003
BERMUDA 2003 : 20 INVESTMENT BUSINESS ACT 2003 [Date of Assent: 5 December 2003] [Operative Date: 30 January 2004, except Section 27: 30 April 2004 and Part IV: 15 September 2004] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
More informationRESTATED AND AMENDED BYLAWS OF JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Effective September 22, 2017) ARTICLE I. Registered and Corporate Offices
RESTATED AND AMENDED BYLAWS OF JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Effective September 22, 2017) ARTICLE I Registered and Corporate Offices Section 1.1 Registered Office. The registered office of the corporation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. echina CASH INC. and. echina CASH (BVI) LTD LIGHT YEAR PARTNERS LLC ELLIOT FRIEDMAN
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. BVIHCV 2008/0330 BETWEEN: echina CASH INC. and echina CASH (BVI) LTD LIGHT YEAR PARTNERS LLC ELLIOT FRIEDMAN
More informationARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION
Company No: 3044323 THE COMPANIES ACTS 1985 TO 2006 COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION of THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION (Adopted by special resolution dated
More informationRETAIL CLIENT AGREEMENT. AxiForex Pty. Ltd. Level 10, 90 Arthur St, North Sydney, NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA
1 RETAIL CLIENT AGREEMENT AxiForex Pty. Ltd. Level 10, 90 Arthur St, North Sydney, NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTERPRETATION... 3 2. DEFINITIONS... 3 3. SERVICES... 3 4. INSTRUCTIONS...
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 14 OF 2012
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 14 OF 2012 CHANNEL OVERSEAS INVESTMENT LIMITED THAMES VENTURES LIMITED GREAT BELIZE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED KATALYST DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Appellants
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD 2006 SURFSIDE TRADING LTD. Claimant/Respondent AND
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD 2006 CLAIM NO. AXAHCV/2005/0016 BETWEEN: SURFSIDE TRADING LTD. AND LANDSOME GROUP INC. ET AL Claimant/Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MUKESH SIRJU VIDESH SAMUEL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINDIAD AND TOBAGO DECISION
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-03454 BETWEEN MUKESH SIRJU VIDESH SAMUEL Claimants AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINDIAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE
More informationPurpose The Organization is established to operate for charitable purposes and shall devote its resources to charitable activities. Article 3.
CANADIAN SERBIAN HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION MALI SVET KANADA FOUNDING BY-LAWS Apr.28.2017 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES (CONSTITUTION) PREAMBLE 1. To establish humanitarian aid to underprivileged children, orphans,
More informationNATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL BILL
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL BILL (As read a First Time) (Introduced by the Minister of Youth, National Service, Sport and Culture) [B. 6-2008] 2 BILL To provide for the
More informationBERMUDA TRUSTS (REGULATION OF TRUST BUSINESS) ACT : 22
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA TRUSTS (REGULATION OF TRUST BUSINESS) ACT 2001 2001 : 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 4A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11A 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRELIMINARY Short title and commencement
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) LAMBERT NELSON. and THE MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF CASTRIES
SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2004/0035 BETWEEN: THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) LAMBERT NELSON and THE MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF CASTRIES Applicant Respondent Appearance:
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS THE TRUSTS ORDINANCE 1990 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Part 1 - Preliminary
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS THE TRUSTS ORDINANCE 1990 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Citation and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Existence of a trust 4. Applicable law of a trust 5. Jurisdiction of the Court
More informationFINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS 2015
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS 2015 *In this Annex, underlining indicates new text and strikethrough indicates deleted text, unless otherwise indicated. FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS
More informationCHAPTER 19:05 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II
LAWS OF GUYANA Public Corporations 3 CHAPTER 19:05 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II NEW PUBLIC CORPORATIONS 3. Establishment
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D IN THE MATTER of Section 11, 12, 13 of the Arbitration Act, Chapter 125 of the Laws of Belize AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 CLAIM NO. 169 of 2011 CLAIM NO. 293 of 2011 IN THE MATTER of Section 11, 12, 13 of the Arbitration Act, Chapter 125 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER of
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE (Ordinance 22 of 2012) PRELIMINARY
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE 2012 (Ordinance 22 of 2012) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART II REGISTRATION
More information