Offshore Litigation Blog

In the Abraaj General Partner VIII Ltd v Abraaj ABOF IV SPV Ltd, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has clarified the scope of a limited partner’s statutory right to receive “true and full information” under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act (2024 Revision) (ELPA) – and where the line should be drawn.

The anonymity which digital currencies and online trading more generally permit is one of the factors which makes the digital space so attractive to those seeking to perpetrate fraud. The claims that have come before the courts of England and Wales involving digital assets have almost exclusively been fraud cases. In these cases, the courts have generally taken a pragmatic approach, permitting such actions to be begun against the unidentified fraudsters as “persons unknown” and granting freezing and disclosure orders to assist in securing and recovering (so far as possible) the proceeds of the fraud.

A significant recent Privy Council decision, Stevanovich v Richardson, clarifies the limits of s273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, Revised Edition 2020 (IA). In particular, the decision confirms that only limited categories of persons can challenge a liquidator’s decision, despite the apparently broad language of s273.

Perhaps inevitably given the exponential growth in the value of the crypto market in recent years, courts all over the world are now tasked with resolving an increasing number of crypto-related disputes. Within the context of crypto recovery claims, this has invariably required the court to grapple with the underlying blockchain technologies.

After a long week’s work, it is always a pleasure to grab a pint of beer with your colleagues. It is no different at Harneys’ Hong Kong office, and in fact we go way beyond that to enjoy beers. We frequent popular craft beer joints around the city, have had beer tasting sessions with our business partners as networking events and internally as team events to strengthen the bonding among team members. Why? It is because our Counsel Sui Hung Yeung is a beer enthusiast, to the extent that he has been regularly acting as a beer judge and brewing his own beers at home. As you can tell, the team has been benefitting a lot from his passion for beer.

In the recent decision of Rodrigues v Wakefield Quin Limited, the Supreme Court of Bermuda clarified the high threshold for pleading fraud; determined it had not been met on the facts of the case; struck out the case and made an indemnity costs award against the plaintiffs and their Bermuda counsel for pleading fraud without “credible material” to establish a prima facie case of fraud.

Two recent decisions illustrate the caution parties should exercise before taking steps that may fall outside the protection afforded by the rules of privilege: (1) a recent English High Court decision – Mornington 2000 LLP (t/a Sterilab Services) and another company v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2025] EWHC 540 (TCC); and (2) a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Bermuda – Moir v Andrew [2025] SC (Bda) 28 Civ (11 March 2025)(Bermuda).

The Cayman Islands Grand Court has awarded indemnity costs in respect of an abusive application for the deferral of a company’s dissolution upon the completion of its voluntary liquidation: In re Skye Assets Fund SPC (in Voluntary Liquidation).

In the recent case of J&J Snack Foods Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd, the English Court discharged a freezing injunction and an access and imaging order due to multiple and serious failures by the Claimants to adhere to their duty of full and frank disclosure and fair presentation. The Court also saw insufficient grounds for re-granting any freezing injunction. This decision highlights the fundamental responsibility of an applicant seeking an ex parte injunction to put matters fairly to the Court, including articulating any anticipated defences and addressing any weaknesses in the applicant’s own case properly.