Schofield J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CAUSE NO. 490 OF 1991
6-04-92
FIDELITY & GUARANTEE INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
(IN LIQUIDATION),
v.
SOM C. HAKEMIAN
Ms. Bridges for the Applicant/Defendant
Mr. Turner for the Respondent/Plaintiff
ORDER
Schofield J.
The defendant in this suit lives in the United States of America. The plaintiff is a Cayman Islands company of which the defendant was the sole shareholder and director. It is now in liquidation.
On the 9th December, 1991, the plaintiff was given leave to serve notice of the writ on the defendant out of the jurisdiction. This application is to set aside that order and for orders setting aside the writ of summons and service thereof on the grounds that the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has no jurisdiction in the suit and that it is not a proper case for service out of the jurisdiction.
The writ alleges that on 30th May, 1987, the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant acknowledged that he owed the plaintiff US$300,000. The loan agreement was secured by a promissory note signed by the defendant which is dated 1st January, 1988. The defendant failed to make repayment of $300,000 with interest at 8% per annum in terms of that note. A claim is for the sum of $300,000 together with interest at 8% per annum.
The defendant's counsel attached the admissibility of the promissory note because stamp duty had not been paid upon it, but that issue has been settled and the stamp duty has now been duly paid. She now argues that the loan agreement contains a jurisdiction clause to the effect that the validity, construction and enforcement of the agreement is to be governed by the laws of Florida, U.S.A. and by implication the promissory note to secure that loan is governed by the same laws. The promissory note itself, however, states:
"This note is to be construed and enforced according to the laws of the Cayman Islands."
Whilst the promissory note may have been made to secure the loan under the agreement of 20th May, 1987, the plaintiff is entitled to sue on the promissory note as it stands. The address on the promissory note signed by the defendant shows that it was made within the jurisdiction. The suit comes within the provisions of Order 11 r (1)(d) R.S.C. and there is no merit in the suggestion that the Grand Court has no jurisdiction in the enforcement of this note.
The summons filed 25th February, 1992 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
H. Schottel