Offshore Litigation Blog

The English High Court recently handed down judgment in Caxton International Ltd v Essity Aktiebolag (Publ), in which Mr Justice Fancourt held that the Claimants not being parties to the subject notes was no bar to seeking declaratory relief that an event of default had occurred under such notes.

On 4 June 2025, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc. The judgment provides welcome certainty to lenders as to when they are put ‘on inquiry’ of undue influence in hybrid loan transactions.

In the recent Hong Kong case of Chen Ming v Chen Jiagan, the Court dismissed a director’s claim that a resolution of the board removing him as chairman of a Company was in breach of the Company’s articles. This decision confirms the well-established principle that a director is not a party to the articles of a company and has no locus to complain about its breach.

The well-established Ralli Bros principle is an exception to the general rule that the enforceability of a contract governed by English law is determined without reference to illegality under foreign law. Under this principle, a contract shall not be enforced if the performance of it is unlawful in the place of performance. In the recent judgment of Litasco SA v Banque El Amana SA, the High Court of England clarified that ’unlawful’ does not cover breaches of foreign court orders.

The English Court of Appeal’s decision in Khan v D’Aubigny is a must-read for litigators, tackling the perennial issue of valid service—whether under common law, contract, or statute. Though arising in a landlord-tenant context, the ruling offers guidance across all litigation, clarifying section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (IA 1978), the common law presumption of service, and what qualifies as a “notice”.

The recent Singapore Court of Appeal case of DEM v DEL offers significant insights into the complexities surrounding arbitration awards, particularly concerning infra petita challenges (failure by a judge or arbitrator to consider a claim or essential issue) when the appellant is a non-participating party in the underlying arbitration.

The judgment in the recent English case of Bugsby Property LLC and Anor v Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Invt. Ltd serves as a useful reminder of the test for the exercise of the discretion of the Court in appointing an arbitrator and the importance of taking care when drafting dispute resolution clauses.

A decision looms for BVI law on the rules for determining the governing law as to the validity, scope and interpretation of arbitration agreements.

In the recent case of Chow v Tong [2024] HKCFI 2737, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the Court) provides helpful guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction clauses. This approach will have a bearing on the circumstances in which the Court will grant a stay of proceedings or find that the principle of forum non conveniens applies on the basis of arguments regarding jurisdiction. The ruling also reaffirms the long-held position regarding strangers to a trust, as well as the rights of beneficiaries to obtain trust documents.

When a contract lacks an express choice of governing law, determining the applicable legal framework can feel like navigating uncharted waters. Case law underscores the need to carefully map the differing approaches across common law jurisdictions. This first blog in a two-part series examines governing law in contractual claims.

In the recent decision of Re Mega Gold Holdings Ltd, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to follow the Privy Council’s BVI decision Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd which clarified the approach to winding-up petitions in the context of agreements to arbitrate.

The recent decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors confirms the acceptance of the “Mackay v Dick” principle as a matter of English Law.