Newton Commonwealth Property, N.V. v. G + H Montage GmbH, s. S91A0285
| Decision Date | 23 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | S91X0287,S91A0286,Nos. S91A0285,s. S91A0285 |
| Citation | 404 S.E.2d 551,261 Ga. 269 |
| Parties | Page 551 404 S.E.2d 551 261 Ga. 269 NEWTON COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY, N.V., et al. v. G + H MONTAGE GmbH. IRVANI v. G + H MONTAGE GmbH. G + H MONTAGE GmbH v. IRVANI, et al. Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Frank C. Jones, L. Joseph Loveland, Bernard F. Shearon, Jr., King & Spalding, Atlanta, Anthony O.L. Powell, Webb, Tanner & Powell, Lawrenceville, for Newton Commonwealth Property, N.V., et al., in No. S91A0285.
L. Dale Owens, Booth, Wade & Campbell, Atlanta, for G + H Montage GmbH in No. S91A0285.
Attorney Register in No. S91A0285:
T. Michael Tennant, Alston & Bird, James H. Rollins, Branch, Pike, Gamz & O'Callaghan, Atlanta.
James H. Rollins, Melody H. Richardson, Branch, Pike, Gamz & O'Callaghan, Atlanta, for Rahim M. Irvani in No. S91A0286.
T. Michael Tennant, Alston & Bird, L. Dale Owens, Booth, Wade & Campbell, L. Joseph Loveland, Bernard F. Shearon, Jr., King & Spalding, Atlanta, for G + H Montage GmbH, et al., in No. S91A0286.
Attorney Register in No. S91A0286:
Anthony O.L. Powell, Webb, Tanner & Powell, Lawrenceville, Frank C. Jones, King & Spalding, Atlanta.
Dean Booth, Allison Wade, L. Dale Owens, Booth, Wade & Campbell, T. Michael Tennant, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, for G + H Montage GmbH in No. S91X0287.
L. Joseph Loveland, Frank C. Jones, King & Spalding, Atlanta, for Rahim M. Irvani, et al., in No. S91X0287.
Attorney Register in No. S91X0287:
Bernard F. Shearon, Jr., King & Spalding, Atlanta, William G. Tanner, Webb, Tanner & Powell, Lawrenceville, James H. Rollins, Melody H. Richardson, Branch, Pike, Gamz & O'Callaghan, Atlanta.
G + H Montage GmbH (hereinafter "Montage") secured a judgment against Irvani in England. It subsequently sought to domesticate that judgment in Gwinnett County, Georgia. As a part of the action, Montage sought to set aside certain transactions involving Irvani, his family, and a number of corporations, some domestic and some from the Netherlands Antilles. The litigation grew increasingly complex with the filing of an amended complaint and with extensive discovery, producing a record of more than 8,000 pages.
For the stated purpose of bringing the complex case under control, the trial court instituted certain limitations on the parties. Those limitations included forbidding the filing of any further motions, limiting the time in which the parties could present their cases at trial, and limiting cross-examination to the same length as direct examination. In all three of these appeals, the trial court's imposition of limits on the parties' efforts to present their cases is enumerated as error.
Our review of the record persuades us that the trial court's efforts to simplify this complex matter, albeit well-intentioned, had the effect of prejudicing the parties and preventing a full and meaningful presentation of the merits of the case. Since the restrictions began before the trial and persisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gwinnett Property, N.V. v. G+H Montage GmbH
...entered judgment on the jury verdict in favor of G+H, but the Supreme Court reversed the judgment. Newton Commonwealth Prop. v. G+H Montage GmbH, 261 Ga. 269, 404 S.E.2d 551 (1991). At the second trial, G+H again asked the court to recognize the English judgment, claimed eight corporations ......
-
CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp.
...nothing for our review. Hightower v. McIntyre, 170 Ga.App. 269, 270, 316 S.E.2d 849 (1984). In Newton Commonwealth Property v. G + H Montage, 261 Ga. 269, 270, 404 S.E.2d 551 (1991), the Supreme Court held that imposing a time limit on the trial of a complex case was reversible error where ......
-
Cousins v. Macedonia Baptist Church
...that "prevent[ ] a full and meaningful presentation of the merits of the case" mandate reversal. Newton Commonwealth Property v. G + H Montage GmbH, 261 Ga. 269, 270, 404 S.E.2d 551 (1991). In this case, Cousins and the other defendants who appeared at the hearing (hereinafter, the "Cousins......
- Crystal Blue Granite Quarries, Inc. v. McLanahan