[1] Globe-x Canadiana Ltd [2] Globe-x Management Ltd [3] Silicon Isle Ltd Appellants v [1] Clifford Johnson [2] Wayne Aranha Respondents [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: GORDON J.A.,Michael Gordon, Q.C.,Justice of Appeal
• Judgment Date: 20 September 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] ECSC J0920-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2003
• Date: 20 September 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

[2004] ECSC J0920-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon Mr. Michael Gordon, Q.C. Justice of Appeal

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2003

In the matter of Globe-X Canadiana Limited (In Liquidation) and Globe-X Management Limited (In Liquidation)

AND IN THE MATTER of Winding-up Orders of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas dated 5 ^th September 2002 appointing Clifford A. Johnson and Wayne J. Aranha as joint Liquidators of Globe-X Canadiana Limited and Globe-X Management Limited

AND IN THE MATTER of a Request from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas dated 4 April 2003 for the recognition of Winding-up Orders made on 5 ^th September 2002

AND IN THE MATTER of a request from the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas dated 4 April 2003 for assistance to be granted to Clifford A. Johnson and Wayne J. Aranha, the Official Liquidators of Globe-X Canadiana Limited and Globe-X Management Limited

Between:

[1] Globe-x Canadiana Limited

[2] Globe-x Management Limited

[3] Silicon Isle Limited

Appellants

and

[1] Clifford Johnson

[2] Wayne Aranha

Respondents

Appearances:

Mr. Kenneth Porter with Miss Merlene Barratt for 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Appellants

Mrs M. E. Birnie Stephenson Brooks for 3 ^rd Appellant

Mr. James Hilsdon for the Respondents

GORDON J.A.

1 This is an application by Globe-X Canadiana Limited and Globe-X Management Limited (hereafter "the Companies") for an extension of time under Part 62.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to file the Record of Appeal and the Skeleton Argument in support of the appeal filed by the Applicants. This Application, dated July 6, 2004, was no doubt stimulated by another application filed by the Respondents seeking to strike out the appeal on the grounds of the Appellants failure to comply with Part 62.12 (3) CPR.

2 I will deal with both applications together for the sake of brevity. The Companies advance as a reason for their non-compliance two distinct causes; firstly, that they had been in serious and potentially fruitful negotiations with the creditor company which had been the petitioner in the proceedings for the winding up of the Companies and that the negotiations had progressed to the point of a draft settlement agreement when the control in the creditor company was sold to a third party. This is neither denied nor admitted by the Respondents. The second reason advanced by Companies for their delay is that in September 2003 the Respondents made an application to this Court for Security for costs; the Court ordered that written submissions be submitted by 9 ^th January 2004 and that they expected a ruling on the application shortly thereafter and were awaiting such ruling.

3 Dealing with the second reason first, I am completely unable to tie the lack of a ruling on the issue of security for costs with the failure to comply with Part 62.12 of CPR into any logical matrix. I discount this absolutely.

4 Regarding the first reason, however, I am sympathetic to the view that where genuine and productive negotiations are proceeding with a likelihood of success, then failure to comply with the time lines set down in CPR might be excusable on the grounds of saving costs and Court time. Having said the above, however, I would not like Counsel to regard this as a charter for excusing delay. Each circumstance will be regarded on its particular merits and Courts will extend time only where they are convinced that delay was caused by a reasonable belief of imminent settlement. In any event, the better and safer practice is to apply for an extension of time before the expiry of the time limit being sought to be extended.

5 In the circumstances I would allow an extension of time up to 30 ^th September 2004 within which to file the Record of Appeal and Skeleton submissions.

6 By Order of Saunders CJ [Ag] the parties were...