7,424 judgments 29,712 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

McGlynn Enterprise Ltd v Magda-Zoe Embury - Judgment

G 0039/2020 · 2020-06-22

Application for Charging Order absolute - exercise of discretion of Court to make order under the Schedule 3 para 1(2) of the Judicature Law 2017. Charging Order absolute; discretion under Judicature Law Schedule 3; judgment enforcement; failure to show cause; effect of undertakings; costs charged against property

Full metadata
Legislation cited
Statute Sections cited Mentions
Judicature Act 1
Full text8 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0039/2020
Between
McGlynn Enterprise Ltd
- v -
Magda-Zoe Embury - Judgment
Before
Ramsay-Hale J
Judgment delivered 2020-06-22

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS IN THE MATTER THE JUDICATUR OVER REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN OURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS OF AN APPLICATION MADE PURSUANT TO THE THE LAW (2017 REVISION) AND GCR ORDER 50 TO ERTTY MCGLYNN ENTERPRISE LTD -AND- MAGDA-ZOE EMBURY CAUSE NO: 39 of 2020 HIRD SCHEDULE OF OBTAIN A CHARGE Plaintiff ON THE PAPERS SUBMISSIONS TO Judgment Delivered Application Defendant in person : 22 June 2020 HEADNOTE for Charging Order absolute - exercise of discretion on under the Schedule 3 para 1(2) of the Judicature Law JUDGMENT Defendant Juif Court to make order v 2017

The Plaintiff USS122,620 accruing an (Acting) on G Magda-Zoe I

Ms. Embury order to secu

200622 McGlynn Enter v McGlynn Enterprises Ltd ("McGlynn"), is a litigent 59 with pre-judgment interest thereon of US$9,687.88 and daily rate of $7.98 as of 22 January 2019 due under a surety bond alleging professional negligence and breach of trust against Magda-Zoe Embury, in connection with a conveyancing transaction. failed to pay the judgment debt and McGlynn subsequently the payment of the judgment sum by ex parte Originating by prior order v Magda-Zoe Embury - Judgment creditor in the sum of 1 post-judgment interest early judgment of Gunn J against the Defendant, Ms. v applied for a charging Motion dated 21 February
3. A Charging Parcel 118 an Cause why ti on Ms. Embu date of 7 Jun

Ms. Embury instead made submissions, already given Order nisi over all Ms. Embury's interest in property known to Savannah, Block 27C, Parcel 203 was granted by McMillan. The order should not be made absolute was issued on the 7 May, together with copies of the Charges to be registered pursuant

did not file any evidence in opposition to the application to Ms. Embury asserts, inter alia, that the application was a McGlynn an undertaking to pay any sums accruing to her fro- as Prospect, Block 22D, n J and a Notice to Show lay 2020 and duly served ant thereto, with a return charge her properties but e in reverse. In those unnecessary as she had m the sale or refinancing of her proper- (Acting) and improperly taxed or agri- taxed or agreed in rejecting unassessed or

Neither asse- evidence to ti show that it unduly preju- Law (2017) re-

The Charging costs of this dies into Court, pending the resolution of her appeal against further, the application was not made bona fide for securing secure the costs of litigating its claim, even though there is a McGlynn's application, that it was inappropriate to charge This latter argument appears to be constructed from the costs. Ms. Embury's application, that it was inappropriate to charge further, the application was not made bona fide for securing the exercise of the Court's discretion is evidence of personal would be mequitable to make the order or details of other exercised if a charging order were made; see Section 29 and Sch. costs that para l(2). Order made by McMillan J on 7 May 2020 is hereby made application as also charged against the properties, at the judgment debt, but the costs have not yet been decision by McMillan J, property in respect of made absolute. Relevant circumstances tending to creditors who would be dule 3 of the Judicature absolute. The Plaintiff's RAMSAY-HALE J Judge of the Grand 200622 McGlynn Enter Court Prior to Maggda-Zoe Embury - Judgment

Find similar