Smellie CJ
IN THE GRANT COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CAUSE NO: D 132 of 2007 Legal Aid No. 51 of 2007 BETWEEN SIDEY ALFARO RODRIGUEZ PETITIONER AND EVORT EBANKS RESPONDENT IN CHAMBERS THE 28th FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE Appearances: Mrs. Terry Caudeiron and Ms. Kate McClymont of Broadhurst Barristers for the petitioner (present with her) Mrs. Sheridan Brooks-Hurst for Mr. Ebanks (present with her) Mr. Akiwumi for Audrey Ebanks (the owner of the property in question) RULING
The case law and the rules of Court (Order 15 Rule 6/8 by analogy) make it clear that a person who is not a party may be joined as a defendant or intervenor entirely as a matter of the discretion of the Court
Given that two years ago, the proposed intervenor was opposed to being joined as a third party and was allowed to remain outside the action, at her election; the Court should be astute to ask itself the question whether her intervention now would simply be a tactical move deployed to prejudice the petitioner to whose interest she is opposed.
I have considered that question but can see no proper objective basis for such a conclusion. I am told that the change of heart is simply the result of different advice given by her new attorney and will accept that explanation.
More to the point though, is whether her intervention at this late stage will cause harm to the interests of the petitioner.
True it is that the petitioner will be further inconvenienced by an adjournment to result from the late intervention, but she will suffer no irremediable prejudice.
On the other hand, the proposed intervenor may objectively be regarded as entitled to change her mind with the passage of time and on the basis of new legal advice.
This is a concern that I expressed at the outset at the last hearing when I enquired whether evidence would be given by or on her behalf as the registered owner of the disputed property. Given the nature of the allegations, I should not seek to determine the true ownership of the property without regard to any evidence she may wish to give.
It seems however, that neither side had an intention to adduce her evidence.
Now that she wishes to be heard, I intend to hear from her. And if she is to be heard, it would not be appropriate that she should be denied representation when she is to be cross-examined, nor the benefit of having the other parties cross-examined by her attorney.
I consider that the appropriate disposition this morning, having regard to the unavailability of her attorney for continuation today and tomorrow, is to adjourn the matter for a final hearing date with directions for Ms. Ebanks (the proposed intervenor) to be immediately served with the evidence in the case and for her to file any further affidavit evidence upon which she seeks to rely within one month.
The case will then be set for a final hearing at the first available and convenient date thereafter.
As the petitioner (and the respondent, although he agrees with the adjournment) are both legally aided, there will be no order as to costs. Hon. Anthony Smellie Chief Justice