Court acted in timely manner

is to correct comments pertaining to the Judiciary and published in your
newspaper on Thursday, 10 January, 2010. The comments were made in an article
titled ‘Hyatt misses government ultimatum’.

article reported on the Hyatt Regency Hotel’s (now the Grand Cayman Beach
Suites) unresolved insurance claim arising from 2004’s Hurricane Ivan and
resulting in the hotel suing its insurers in the Grand Court.

this latest media reference to the unresolved court matter, Mr. Bill Powers, general
manager of the Grand Cayman Beach Suites, is quoted as saying:

real problem was the failure of insurance companies to honour their obligations
under insurance policies and the inability of the local judiciary to properly
and promptly deal with disputes relating to insurance claims.”

Contrary to this assertion, an
examination of the court file demonstrates that the case has been dealt with –
properly and promptly — by the judiciary. It is true that there has been
considerable delay, but that has not been caused by the judiciary.

The hotel started its action in
June 2005. Its lawyers subsequently filed an application for summary judgment
on 26 August, 2005, and this was heard by Justice Alexander Henderson 29-30
September, 2005. Within a matter of weeks, on 4 November, 2005, Judge Henderson
delivered reasons for judgment rejecting the application. The hotel sought
leave to appeal against that decision but never pursued its appeal.

The hotel next filed an application
on 28 April, 2006, for directions related to pre-trial matters. This
application was heard and decided on 14 June, 2006. Then, on 11 May, 2007, the hotel
filed an application for the disclosure of a certain document. This application
was heard and decided (against the hotel) on 7 August, 2007. The hotel filed an
application seeking leave to appeal this ruling on 14 September, 2007. Judge
Henderson heard and decided that application on 9 October, 2007, (in favour of
the hotel), but, again, the hotel never pursued its appeal.

The last action by the hotel — the
filing of an affidavit, a relatively minor and insignificant step — was taken
on 20 February, 2008, but since then the hotel has not sought to advance its

As to the criticism regarding
the efficiency of the Court’s processing of this matter, a review of the
schedule of applications and hearings, as outlined above, clearly shows that
the hotel’s applications were all handled promptly and expeditiously by our
Court. As to whether the applications were handled “properly” (to quote Mr.
Powers), I observe only that the hotel has not chosen to pursue any appeal.