Court Code
TCASC

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.

This is a ruling in respect of an application for Limited Admission which was issued by Mr Tim Prudhoe Attorney at Law on behalf of Mr James Gale on 25 February 2022 (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.