Offshore Litigation Blog

We recently wrote about two Grand Court decisions that confirmed the governing principles on interim payments. The two cases considered demonstrate that the Cayman Islands court has a pro-creditor approach to interim payments, and one of the fundamental principles the court will consider when deciding whether or not to make an award is whether there is a good reason not to order an interim payment.

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.

Two recent decisions of Justice Parker provide useful analysis on the exercise by the Grand Court of its discretion to order costs on an indemnity basis.

In the recent decision of Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd & Anor v Kei [2022] EWHC 3265 (Comm), the English High Court has clarified the circumstances in which a foreign judgment may be restricted from enforcement.

In the recent case of Oscar Trustee Limited v MBS Software Solutions Limited, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Commercial Court and reaffirmed that the convenience of witnesses including their availability and location remains not simply a relevant but in fact a core factor in forum non conveniens applications.

In Yao Juan v Kwok Kin Kwok and Crown Treasure Group Limited, the Court of Appeal handed down another seminal decision on costs’ recovery agreeing with the Appellant that costs incurred by lawyers not admitted to practice in the BVI are not recoverable.

The English Court of Appeal, in an important decision in Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalet Ithalat Ithracat ve Sanayi AS v Aytacli (2021) EWCA Civ 1037 of 13 July 2021 which will be relevant to other jurisdictions with a regime for imposing liability for litigation costs on non-parties to the litigation (third party costs orders), has identified the guidelines in considering whether such an order should be made against directors (or shareholders) of an insolvent company.

Petitions filed under Section 238 of the Cayman Islands Companies Act are ultimately concerned with one thing: the fair value of shares held by shareholders who have dissented from a merger or consolidation and therefore rejected the price offered to them for their shares. The company subject to the merger contends for a lower valuation; the dissenting shareholder contends for a higher valuation; expert valuation evidence is adduced; the Court, with the assistance of the experts, arrives at a fair value figure.

In the recent decision of Lam & CP Global v Tor Asia Master Fund & Ors, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ruled on the issue of costs following the discontinuance of proceedings.