Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Subpoena Duces Tecum – Please bring your things

In an interesting development to the Nord Anglia litigation, the next appraisal case to be heard by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Justice Kawaley was asked to rule on subpoenas issued by a group of dissenting shareholders.

Previously, in September this year (previously blogged here), the Court refused an application by the same group of dissenting shareholders to order a Letter of Request to the High Court of Hong Kong. That application sought to obtain documents said by the dissenters to be relevant to assertions made by a non-party to the valuation proceeding.

The dissenters issued the subpoenas in parallel to the Letter of Request application and thus both the company and non-party sought to set them aside. The Grand Court approached its determination in a pragmatic manner as the documents sought by way of subpoena were, for the most part, very similar to those sought in the Letter of Request and had been dealt with the in the Letter of Request ruling.

In keeping with its previous position, the Grand Court held that the non-parties to the action should provide some of the information sought by the subpoenas. Anticipating this, the overarching concern of the non-parties was the confidentiality of the information sought in the categories of documents which the Grand Court had already indicated met the test for disclosure. That information was adjudged to be relevant to the issue of fair value in the substantive proceeding. The Court was also mindful of the Highly Sensitive Document (HSD) regime, which was and remains in place between the company and the dissenting shareholders generally. In an attempt to cut through the issues, the Grand Court ruled that the parties should seek to agree a bespoke arrangement dealing with issues of confidentiality with recourse to a ruling of the Court in the event agreement could not be reached.

The Ruling provides a helpful vignette of the Grand Court’s commercially-focused approach when dealing with large scale litigation.

Harneys appeared on behalf of a number of the non-parties respect of the subpoenas.

Subpoena Duces Tecum – Please bring your things

Leave A Comment