Developers to refrain from construction and/or blocking access to site
The injunction, which restrains the developer/defendants from stopping use of the area by the captains, as well as from doing any construction that would stop use of the site by the captains/boat operators. If the plaintiff’s are unsuccessful at trial, they will be responsible for any damages suffered by the defendants during this time.
The hearing to determine whether the injunction would be granted was held on Thursday, 20 September and was not attended by the developers/defendants or their attorney/s, as they had withdrew from the proceedings after their request for an adjournment was not granted. As a result the decision phase of the injunction hearing was conducted ex-parte.
Despite the defendants not filing an affidavit stating their case at this point, Justice Richard Williams found that there were grounds to grant the injunction. The defence will have an opportunity to state their case on the 8 and 9 of October.
An agreement between the defendants and the government stipulated that the captains should move their vessels to an interim site. Earlier this year, the plaintiffs were approached by Developer Mike Ryan, who informed them that they would have to move to a temporary marina. One of the plaintiffs told Mr. Ryan that his single engine boat could not operate at the interim site, according to Justice Williams, who noted that Mr. Ryan had told that plaintiff that further works would be done. In July a closure notice was placed on the land, which said all fixtures were to be removed and access was shut off and the area boarded up.
Justice Williams said, in his opinion, there was evidence that showed the plaintiffs cannot operate from the new site, as it is not adequate for their needs. He also sited the fact that some of the plaintiffs have been using the site since 1989, while others have been there since 1999 and have made investments in the site such as docks. He added that the plaintiffs had been instrumental in an agreement with the water company to have pipes run to the location at one point.
“Based on the information and submissions, the plaintiff’s case raises serious issues to be tried,” noted Justice Williams. “It cannot be said that their claims have no prospect of succeeding. A trial is likely to take place,” he continued.
Two days of court have been allotted for the trial that will take place on 8 and 9 October.
Justice Williams said the main issue was that the sit in question might be fundamentally and permanently altered had the injunction not been granted and as such “the status quo prior to the notice (to leave the site) should be maintained.”
He then proceeded to grant the injunction, which outlines that there should be not hindrance of access to the site nor should any construction proceed that deprives access or use of it.
Related Videos
Michael Ryan should have to put up a performance bond to cover the cost of building the new marina .If he runs out of money mid development the captains will have no marina and nowhere to operate from after the expiry of the agreement to use the temp facility
Curious, do these boat captains have a legally binding lease or agreement to use this marina or is it a specific law that grants them use of it. I am asking because I though there were a other marinas in Cayman, are they a lot more expensive then this one and not affordable to these boat owners?
While reading articles in another New Service known for misrepresenting the truth I noticed a lot of chatter about Mike Ryan owing the Caymanian People 6 Million Dollars. What is the truth about this? Is it him that owes this money or is it owed by the Ritz as a company? If so wouldn’t it be paid at cose of the sale of hotel…If posible Compass could you put an end to the speculation one way or the other and let us know who actually owes the money.