Court Code
TCASC

This is a ruling on 3 applications (1) for leave to appeal summary judgment, (2) for a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal (3) a Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiff for the issue of a writ of sequestration by way of enforcement of the judgment.

This is a ruling on three applications in respect of orders made in a claim brought against the estate of the deceased; (1) for leave to appeal summary judgement, (2) for a stay and (3) for a charging order to be made absolute,

The Defendant, Ramon Andrews applied to the Court pursuant to ss.20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 2018 for the amended information to be quashed; that no leave be granted for the amended information to be further amended and for any further orders deemed fit to be made.

This is a ruling on an application seeking that the Defendant attend at the Supreme Court, Providenciales, to be examined orally, by way of video-conferencing, at a hearing to be held before the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court, Number 11, Buenos Aries, Argentine Republic.

This is a ruling made prior to the determination of an application for ancillary financial relief in divorce proceedings following a change of the judicial officer with conduct of the proceedings, arising out of the Court's concerns as to the appearance of apparent or apprehended judicial bias.

This is a ruling on an urgent application for custody and maintenance of the children of the marriage, which sought to vary a previous custody order of the Magistrates' Court. 

This is a ruling on an application made pursuant to Ord.45 r.11 for a stay of an order made in divorce proceedings concerning the day-to-day care and control of children pending determination of an appeal of that order. 

This is a ruling on an application seeking permission to rely on variations to s.72 of the Registered Land Ordinance contained within a charge and to be able to sell a property by private treaty.

The Applicants filed a notice of motion for judicial review seeking inter alia, an order to quash the Minister decisions to refuse the Applicants asylum. The “dispute” that led to these proceedings involved a decision to re-interview the Applicants after refusing their asylum applications.