Offshore Litigation Blog

The Cayman Islands Trusts (Amendment Act) 2019 introduced a new statutory Hastings-Bass jurisdiction at s.64A of the Trusts Act which became operational on 14 June 2019. There has been no unreported or reported cases since its introduction.

On 31 March 2023, in the case of Re Gatecoin Limited (in liquidation), the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled on an application by the liquidators of Gatecoin seeking directions on the characteristics of cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies and whether the cryptocurrencies held should be regarded as being held on trust for Gatecoin’s account holders. The decision brings Hong Kong in line with other common law jurisdictions whose courts have already decided that issue, including England and Wales, New Zealand and the BVI. This is further acceptance by the common law courts that, despite their unusual features, cryptocurrencies and digital assets do not sit outside of the law.

In the recent English High Court decision of Perez v Equiom Trust Corporation (UK) Ltd and Equiom Trust (South Dakota) LLC [2022], the claimant revoked an English law governed trust of which the defendants were the trustees, and sought declarations that the revocation was valid, and that the defendants held trust assets on bare trust for the claimant and at her direction.

In a decision by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (ST Limited v AV, 24 October 2021), a trustee sought a declaration that a deed executed after the former protector’s resignation appointing a successor protector was valid and effective.

The English Commercial Court recently gave summary judgment in Gary Jones v Persons Unknown et al [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm), in which it found that Huobi Global Limited (Huobi), an exchange registered in Seychelles, was constructive trustee of the Claimant’s stolen Bitcoin.

In the recent Supreme Court decision of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) v Aquila Advisory Ltd (the Company), the Supreme Court held that the Company was entitled to secret profits obtained by the directors from the unlawful use of the Company’s property and was therefore held on constructive trust for the Company.

In the recent decision in Wang v Darby the English High Court considered whether the defendant held cryptocurrency on trust for the claimant and whether the claimant, therefore, had a proprietary right over the cryptocurrency and could retain a proprietary injunction over it. Ultimately the High Court found that whilst cryptocurrency could form the subject matter of a trust, no trust arose in the circumstances and as such, there was no basis for proprietary claims or a proprietary injunction. But the High Court did continue the worldwide freezing injunction against the defendant to protect the claimant’s personal claims.

The power to exclude a beneficiary from a trust must be exercised with due care failing which an excluded beneficiary may be able to obtain relief from the court.

In a judgment dated 11 March 2020 in the Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing litigation, the Court of Appeal confirmed that legal advice obtained for the benefit of a trust cannot be withheld from a beneficiary where it is responsive to that beneficiary’s subject access request (SAR) under the UK Data Protection Act (DPA).