Lorraine Collins v Peter Malcolm Collins

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 07 July 2000
• Docket Number: Civil Jurisdiction 2000 No. 187
• Date: 07 July 2000
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Philip Storr

Civil Jurisdiction 2000 No. 187

BETWEEN:

Lorraine Collins

Plaintiff

-and-

Peter Malcolm Collins

Defendant

Conyers Dill & Pearman—for the Plaintiff

Appleby Spurling & Kempe—for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff in this action, by Generally Endorsed Writ of Summons issued on 21^st June 2000 claims relief in these Courts to assist her in enforcing a judgment which she obtained in the Circuit Court of Fort Lauderdale Florida on 6^th June 2000.

The general endorsement of her claim is as follows: -

The Plaintiff's claim is for: -

• 1. The sum of US$49,288.00 and other sums payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Order of the Circuit Judge sitting at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on the 6^th day of June 2000.

• 2. Possession of the vessel known as Masquerade wrongfully converted by the Defendant from the Plaintiff in breach of the above-referenced Court Order and other applicable law.

She also sought further for other relief and costs.

Service of the Writ was effected on the Defendant's attorneys who accepted such service on behalf of the Defendant.

On the same day, as the writ was served the Plaintiffs attorneys issued an ex-parte application for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from removing his assets from the jurisdiction of these Courts. The only asset within such jurisdiction was a 51ft sloop known as Masquerade with its tender. The application was granted.

For some inexplicable reason, the Plaintiff also sought an order that the Defendant should surrender his passport to the Plaintiffs attorneys and whilst the Judge did not make such an order at the hearing, that provision appears in the engrossment of the Order provided to this Judge for his signature.

There have been various incidental orders since that order which do not affect the status of the injunction which was granted. The Defendant now seeks an order discharging the injunction. The Plaintiff, for her part, seeks the extension of the injunction up to this date of trial.

Although the words of Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 of the United Kingdom which is in identical terms to Section 19(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1905 of Bermuda are very wide, it is firmly established by a long history of judicial self-denial that they are not to be taken at their face value and that their application is subject to severe restraints. The doctrine of the Siskina 1979 AC 210, put at its highest, is that the right to an interlocutory injunction cannot exist in isolation, but it is always incidental to and dependant upon the enforcement of a substantive right which usually although not invariably takes the shape of a cause of action (per Lord Mustill in Channell Tunnel Group Ltd. -v- Balfour Beattie Construction Ltd. (1993) AC 334 at 360).

It is therefore necessary to establish whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims made by the Plaintiff in her Writ of Summons.

I will deal with the second claim, the claim in conversion, first as this is the more easily disposed of.

By paragraph 10 of the Particulars of the Plaintiffs claim delivered on the 19^th July, the Plaintiff asserts that the vessel Masquerade and its tender belong to her by virtue of the Order of Judge Renée Goldenberg of the Florida Court. This order purports (inter alia) to transfer both...