The rule in Smith v Selwyn (1914) 3 KB 98 was no longer part of the common law of Jamaica and the Jamaican courts had not erred in refusing the appellants' application for a stay or suspension of civil proceedings, pending completion of criminal proceedings against them.The defendant appellants (X) appealed from the decision of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissing their application for a stay or suspension of civil proceedings against them, pending completion of criminal proceedings against them. X were involved in the management of certain financial institutions that subsequently became the responsibility of the respondent company (F). In 1995 F began civil proceedings against X alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud. In 1996 X were charged with conspiracies to defraud, conspiracies to deceive and falsification of accounts. The Supreme Court of Jamaica dismissed X's application for a stay or suspension of the civil proceedings pending completion of criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed X's appeal from that decision. It was concluded that any delay in the civil proceedings would severely prejudice F and would not be in the public interest. X submitted that the rule in Smith v Selwyn (1914) 3 KB 98, that a felony could not be made the foundation of a civil action until the felon had been prosecuted or a reasonable excuse shown for non-prosecution, was still part of Jamaican law even thought it was no longer part of English law.HELD: (1) The rule in Smith v Selwyn was no longer part of the common law of Jamaica. (2) The Jamaican courts did not err in deciding that X had failed to make out their case for a stay or suspension.Appeal dismissed.
 UKPC 86