To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The world of eDiscovery and, more broadly, legal process
outsourcing, has changed quite dramatically over the past five to
ten years. The number of documents that legal teams deal with
day-to-day keeps increasing and data volumes containing information
relevant to litigations continue to soar. The problem that legal
teams have is that budgets are not growing with them.
The result is that legal teams are dealing with huge volumes of
information and the amount of money that they have to spend on
these matters is not growing at the same rate. eDiscovery and
with the authors To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Do you want to compare other jurisdictions?. Click here
1 Legal and judicial framework
1.1 Which legislative and regulatory provisions govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction?
Judgments from foreign countries are recognisable and enforceable in the Cayman Islands pursuant to the common law and, in a limited number of cases, pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Reciprocal Enforcement Law (1996 Revision).
Foreign arbitration awards may be enforced under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Law (1997 Revision) (for further details please see
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The International Chamber of Commerce has recently published its report entitled ‘The Accuracy of Fact Witness Memory in International Arbitration (Report). The mandate of the committee behind the Report, inspired by observations of Toby Landau QC,
1 was “to look at the science (with input from eminent psychologists specialising in human memory), at arbitral practice (with input from Task Force members specialising in international arbitration around the globe) and to consider whether modifications could be made to current practices, or alternative approaches could be adopted …”.
Premier Ford s motion for a dismissal of the
action
In applying the tests under s. 137.1, Justice Belobaba found
that Premier Ford s burden to meet the test that the claim
involved a matter of public interest was easily met and there was
no dispute on this issue between the parties. This shifted the onus
onto the plaintiff to meet his burdens under the section.
The issue of “substantial merit” was not argued as
the court directed before the hearing of the motion that only the
issues of “no valid defence” and the weighing exercise
under s. 137.1(4)(b) required consideration.
Premier Ford contended that his alleged defamatory expression
Owain Stone shares his insights with the Chartered Institute of
Arbitrators Australia.
The innovation challenge
Forensic expert Owain Stone recently shared his insights with
the Chartered
Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Australia about changes to
expert evidence engagement in arbitrations and litigation. In
response to the Covid-19 pandemic, both courts and arbitrations had
to innovate.
In this article, Owain notes that while this has been a steady
evolution for the historically more innovation-friendly
arbitrations, the recent changes are more revolutionary for some
courts. The unexpected and unprecedented restrictions arising
from the international response to COVID-19 has meant both
international arbitrations and the courts needed to