Captains get stay over Safehaven marina
(CNS): Local boat captains who are trying to protect their rights at the Safehaven marina have succeeded in drawing a temporary halt to the work at the public dock by local developer Michael Ryan. The boat owners and tour operators came together to file legal action last week after they were told to vacate the site by Ryan and later the Port Authority in order for works to being on a new marina. The captains have, however, been concerned that the new facility, if it is ever completed, will not meet their needs and that there are no guarantees that they will be able to continue to keep their boats there, putting their livelihoods at risk.
Having filed an injunction last week, spokesperson for the group Captain Bryan Ebanks confirmed that they were successful in winning a stay on the work on Thursday in Grand Court until a full hearing, which will now take place in two weeks time when the full details of the case and the various disputes will be argued.
“Although this is only the first step, it demonstrates what can happen when people work together,” Ebanks told CNS.
MLA Ezzard Miller, who has been backing the captains in their fight to stay at Safehaven, agreed and described it as a significant result. “This is a significant victory because a group of Caymanians have come together and used the courts to stand up against the draconian unilateral actions of the Port Authority,” he said. "This should inspire others to action, particularly through the courts, for their rights and not simply take what is decided for them and walk away."
Among the many issues relating to the dispute, the most pressing one is that the temporary site the captains were asked to relocate to while the work on the new facility was underway, as well as the proposed new marina itself, are not big enough to accommodate the vessels as the turning space was insufficient.
Justice Williams, who heard the case for the temporary injunction, was persuaded that there was evidence the captains would not be able to operate from the new site. As some of thecaptains have used the Safehaven marina for some 25 years, he also found that there were genuine issues that should be tried.
The case is now set down for 8 and 9 October.
Related articles and court order:
Category: Local News
These are the things that sadden me for the future of my country…
Port Authority should be DAMN ashamed of themselves. They have taken the side of investors again and not just INVESTORS but investors who have FAILED time and time again to live up to their end of agreements. Current this same developer owes the Cayman Islands or has left oweing to the people of the Cayman Islands 6 million dollars.
Now let's be crustal clear here. CRYSTAL…..
They want to charge us all ends of money for everything under God's beautiful blue sky but this idiot can leave oweing us 6 million dollars AND if that is not bad convince or IDIOTS in our Port Authority department to attack the people of the Cayman Islands WHO HE OWES THE 6 MILLION DOLLARS TO…To be evicted from a place where they do busines where they had promises made to them that was not followed up on and we are not talking months but YEARS.
You IDIOTS in their should be ASHAMED of yourselves…Each and everyone of you should be FIRED ON THE SPOT!!!!
Man, what a wonderful, salacious story! To bad it’s inaccurate, as, it seems, is any story on here that is remotely connected to Michael Ryan. Firstly, I would suggest that the author of this masterful piece of reporting should actually read the Court Order which they have attached to it. It’s clear to me that the only thing the Kelly Boys and “Capt” Bryan have achieved is that they can have access to their vessels and that there is an inhibition on any construction works which impedes their ACCESS to their vessels. Wow! What a victory that is! So it sounds like all other construction work can continue until the court hears the matter more fully in two weeks time. How do you interpret that to be a “stay”? And how do you get from such a simple typical interim order that the Judge “was persuaded that there was evidence that the captains would not be able to operate from the new site”??? Worse yet, immediately after that, the story goes on to say that the Court held that there were genuine issued to be tried? This is in fact, I believe, the true position, that is to say, that the Court wants to fully ventilate the issues and hear the evidence before making a decision on the matter and simply granted the “captains” tempory relief that does not impede the progress of the construction works on the site. This is a typical order that the court will grant in circumstances such as this, and I think is a fair interim order in the circumstances. But it’s far from being a stay or a victory. So, please, try, just for once, to report something relating to this project objectively and stop the creative reporting. It may be, or at least should be, a contempt of Court to deliberately and inaccurately report the Court making a finding of fact when it hasn’t done so.
It's not well reported but it is indeed an ex parte restraining order and it does maintain the status quo ante. Don't know about Cayman but elsewhere you have to make out a prima facie case and show a liklihood of irreparable harm. Next stdep should be to show a liklihood of success on the merits gto get a preliminary injunction. They will have to win on the merits against opposition the next go around.
Did you get that garbage fom Google or from watching CSI? If a judge signed this order and it was in fact an ex parte application they should resign because it is on its face an inter partes order and there is absolutely no basis to apply for this type of injunction on an ex parte basis.
What are you talking about? Have you ever handled an injunction suit?
I have done many many interlocutory injunctions and I can confirm the post abovethat the 9:07 post is gibberish, and from your description of the merits approach on such applications it is clear that you have never heard of American Cyanamid, and if you have heard of it you certainly did not understand what is said, because the whole point was that the Court did not need to consider the merits beyond being satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried. While you are spouting, do tell us why there was any basis to grant an injunction against a public body on an ex parte basis. I am looking forwardto that one.
As the poster of the comment you replied to, the answer to your question is “yes”.
I can confirm you don't know about Cayman. We have laws here, they just aren't like the ones you are spouting here.
You are in contempt of the court of public opinion. Michael Ryan should not be allowed to do ANY development until he pays the people of the Cayman Islands the 6,000,000 he owes them!
When you've sobered up try and write in again so we can figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say.
Sounds like you drunk or ya plain stupido
You lot are lucky it’s not my property, your boats would have been on a dump truck long ago.
It is your property, assuming you're Caymanian. The problem that I have is why some Caymanians should have free mooring (if they vote in West Bay?) and the rest of us have to pay to moor our boats if we are lucky enough to be able to afford a boat.
Same reason why some vendors can set up at public beaches and boat landings and others can't. It is all about VOTES and how to assure them. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Did the plaintiffs show they had assets to meet any cross undertaking as to damages? If they have enough assets to back that up they should have been paying towards their own marina, if they don't they should not be getting an injunction. It is very odd that no-one appeared to oppose the application if they had been properly served.
Wow, there really are good, decent, honest people in this world!
Here you have a developer trying to do the right thing by doing what he promised ” which is to build the marina for the port authority” and he just cannot catch a break. They complain when he doesn’t do anything and then complain when he does exactly as he was obligated to.
As soon as Mike Ryan "does the right thing" and pays up the 6 MILLION dollars he owes, then he might be able to have his name in a sentence which contains those four little words.
"6 MILLION dollars he owes" is five words, surely?
I think the four words were "does the right thing".
Ryan's main obligation to the people of this country, is to pay $6,000,000.00. That is what is lawfully owed to the Cayman Islands Government and its people. This is what we need to bith about. Get it.
Yes Michael Ryan is doing the right thing for him as he did in 2003 when he got millions of dollars in fill for his Ritz carlton project and a waterway connecting the Ritz to the North Sound to build a Marina for these same people which he has not built and the Port authority who received no compensation for the millions of fill then decided to let him dredge up the reainder of the 10 acres to build the same marina he was first contracted to build. Brilliant isnt it.
"developer trying to do the right thing by doing what he promised".
Do you mean like paying the 6,000.00 he owes.