Smellie J
IN CHAMBERS
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CAUSE NO: 66 OF 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS (PRESERVATION) LAW (1995 REVISION)
AND IN THE MATTER OF ANSBACHER (CAYMAN) LTD.
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPOINTMENT OF AN AUTHORISED OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE COMPANIES ACT 1990 OF EIRE.
Appearances:
Andrew Jones of Maples & Calder for Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd.
Stephen Hall-Jones Senior Crown Counsel for the Attorney General as amicus curiae.
Antonio Bueno Q.C. Charles Quin and John Lawless instructed by Quin & Hampson for the Government of Eire (with them Mr. Gerard Ryan and Mr. Paul Appleby for the Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment of Eire).
SUMMARY OF RULING
This is the application of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd.(hereinafter “Ansbacher”) for directions of this Court as to whether it might comply with the directive of the authorised officer, Mr. Gerard Ryan appointed to it by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment of Ireland.
That directive purports to command Ansbacher, to deliver over to Mr. Ryan certain records said to be within the control of Ansbacher in the Cayman Islands and which have become known as “the Ansbacher files”.
The decision I now pronounce goes only to the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction
to hear Ansbacher’s application and to give directions in this matter. The decision I now pronounce is intended in no manner to reflect upon the merits of Ansbacher’s application or upon the merits of Mr. Ryan’s directive.
The question is whether Ansbacher has established that Mr. Ryan’s directive and the Ministerial Warrant appointing him in Ireland as authorised officer to Ansbacher are effective as a requirement to give evidence for the purposes of the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law of the Cayman Islands.
In the absence of a clear basis for concluding that those measures operate in that manner for the purposes of the Cayman Islands legislation, this court cannot regard itself as vested with jurisdiction to give any directions in response to them.
For reasons which will shortly be delivered in full written form the decision which I now pronounce is that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear Ansbacher’s application or to give any directions upon that application.
It follows that the application must be struck out and I so order.
Anthony Smellie
JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT
Dated 13th day of MAY 1998.