The dispute stemmed from a 2014 agreement to sell a Cayman property. The plaintiffs originally issued Cayman proceedings, but at the defendant’s urging, the action was stayed on forum grounds so the matter could be determined in Michigan (where the parties lived). After a contested hearing, the Michigan Circuit Court granted summary judgment upholding the property sale agreement and ordered specific performance. The defendant’s subsequent appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeal was dismissed and the Michigan Supreme Court refused leave. When the defendant still did not comply, the Circuit Court signed the sale agreement on her behalf. Relying on those outcomes, the plaintiffs obtained Cayman summary judgment in September 2024. The defendant’s subsequent leave to appeal this summary judgment was refused in the Grand Court and by a single judge of the Court of Appeal. The defendant then renewed her application before the full Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that any appeal had no real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success and agreed with the single appeal judge that the requirements for foreign issue estoppel were satisfied (relying on Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws):

• The Michigan courts were competent;
• Their judgments were final, conclusive and on the merits;
• The parties were the same; and
• The issues now raised in Cayman were the same as those determined in Michigan.

It was therefore too late to revisit the merits in this jurisdiction.

In reaching their conclusion, the Court of Appeal also considered and agreed with the single judge’s analysis regarding the test for summary judgment under Cayman law, being whether the defendant has a realistic, as opposed to a fanciful, defence and one that is more than merely arguable (derived from the English case of Easyair v Opal Telecom).

The defendant, acting in person, repeated and expanded on her complaints about the agreement’s validity, alleged duress, unconscionability, evidential falsity, and impropriety in the Michigan proceedings, and contended the Grand Court should have engaged those points under Cayman law.

The Court of Appeal held that such submissions did not confront the basis of the Grand Court’s decision, being issue estoppel. Having successfully contended at the outset that Michigan was the appropriate forum, the defendant was bound by the Michigan outcomes and could not re‑argue the dispute in Cayman. To the extent any points were not advanced in Michigan but could and should have been, it was now too late.

1. Final, merits‑based decisions of competent foreign courts between the same parties on the same issues will be given issue‑estoppel effect in Cayman.
2. Parties who secure an overseas forum should expect to be held to the result; Cayman will not readily offer a second bite at the cherry.
3. Summary judgment remains a robust filter. Defences foreclosed by estoppel, or that are merely fanciful, will be disposed of summarily, saving cost and time.