This is a ruling on an application to set aside a Statutory Demand made on Buckeye Holdings Ltd pursuant to section 155(2) of the Insolvency Ordinance CAP 16.18. Buckeye contended that the Statutory Demand should be set aside because there is a substantial dispute in relation to the alleged debt within the meaning of section 157 of the Insolvency Ordinance.
This is a ruling on an application by the Plaintiff to file a supplemental witness statement, a statement of anticipated evidence and an amended trial bundle. The substantive claim is a running down action arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on the Leeward Highway in the vicinity of Scotia Bank in December 2015.
This is a ruling on a contested petition for divorce brought by DT against CG pursuant to section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance. The petitioner contended that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, as the respondent has behaved in such a way that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The respondent denied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
This is a ruling on a summons to cross examine the 1st Respondent in judicial review proceedings, involving Sri Lankan nationals who arrived in the Turks and Caicos Islands in 2019. They applied to the Minister of Immigration for asylum, but the Minister denied their application.
This is a ruling on two summonses. The 1st defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons on the grounds that (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st defendant; and/or (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; and/or (c) it is an abuse of process of the Court. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment based on the ground that the 1st defendant has no defence to the claim.
The appellant appealed against receiving the mandatory minimum sentence of a term of imprisonment of seven years, after pleading guilty to the offences of keeping a firearm and keeping ammunition contrary to the Firearms Ordinance. The appellant argued that the sentence is manifestly excessive considering the circumstances of this case and that the sentencing judge was wrong in law in failing to find exceptional circumstances, which would have warranted a sentence less than the mandatory minimum.
This is an appeal from Orders of the Supreme Court in (1) CL 79/21 Tides Development Project Inc (“Tides”) v Phoenix Developments Ltd (“Phoenix”) and (2) CL 82/21 Tides Development Project Inc. v Turtle Cove Hotel and Residences Ltd (“Turtle Cove”).
This is an application for security for costs of this appeal. The principal issue that arises on the application is whether the applicant (Tropical) is entitled to an order for security for costs of the appeal, notwithstanding what the respondent (YM) says, that there was inordinate delay in making the application.
This is a ruling on two preliminary summonses in proceedings concerning the appointment of water undertakers under the Water and Sewerage Ordinance. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have both been appointed water undertakers for the Leeward Area, by the Minister for Home Affairs, Public Utilities and Transportation.
This was a medical negligence claim. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s medical staff at the hospital were negligent in not performing a colonoscopy earlier, which would have led to the discovery of a malignant tumor in his sigmoid colon.
The Defendant was before the Court for sentencing following his guilty pleas to two counts of attempted rape and one count of rape with respect to D.R, a child under the age of sixteen (16) years; and five counts of rape with respect to S.P, a child under the age of thirteen (13) years old, contrary to sections 3 and 7 respectively, of the Sexual Offences Ordinance 2020 (the Ordinance).
