Go to content
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
${item.Icon}
${ item.ShortDescription }
${ item.SearchLabel?.ViewModel?.Label }
See all results
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
${item.Icon}
${ item.ShortDescription }
${ item.SearchLabel?.ViewModel?.Label }
See all results

Offshore Litigation Blog

Knight chess piece on a 2x2 board

${totalItems} results

${customFilterHeading} Showing ${showingItems} of ${totalItems} results ${searchTerm}
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
Reset
Does it have sharp teeth? Breadth of ancillary disclosure orders - Al Saud v Gibbs
It is widely accepted in the BVI, Cayman Islands and Bermuda courts, as well as other common law jurisdictions, that an asset disclosure order is an ancillary order which gives a freezing injunction “its teeth” and the purpose for which they are made is to police that freezing order. But how is the court persuaded to bite?
Upping the anti: non-contractual anti-anti-suit injunctions
In the recent decision of Magomedov & others v PJSC Transneft & others , the English High Court provided guidance on the circumstances in which the court may grant anti-anti suit injunctive ancillary relief restraining parties from proceeding with foreign anti-suit proceedings, in the absence of any contractual agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English Court.
Non-matching accessories - accessory liability is not strict
In the High Court, Lifestyle Equities, (Lifestyle) successfully claimed that Hornby had infringed their trademarks. Lifestyle also successfully sued the Ahmeds personally, alleging they were jointly liable by sharing a common design with Hornby. Trademark infringement uses strict liability, which meant that there was no need for Lifestyle to prove that the Ahmeds knew of or intended the infringement.
Comity has its limits
In the recent decision of White v O N Drilling Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the grant of a permanent injunction restraining a former director of the Respondent companies from purporting to act on the Respondents’ behalf in maintaining Mexican restructuring proceedings on the basis that the comity doctrine did not apply because the interim injunctions were not anti-suit injunctions and the court would prioritise protecting its own jurisdiction and orders.
Wrapping it up
In the recent decision of CF v DLG, the BVI Commercial Court held that a two-step process is to be preferred over the use of “wrap up orders” in Norwich Pharmacal proceedings. The applicant, a judgment creditor, sought Norwich Pharmacal relief against registered agency service providers to the judgment debtor, for information to assist with considering its enforcement options.
Beddoes, Anti-suits and Déjà vu
In the recent decision of G Trust, the Cayman Islands Grand Court had little hesitation in directing that the trustee could apply to restrain certain beneficiaries from pursuing an application in Hong Kong to appoi…
How to get an injunction in the BVI
We cover 11 key questions we’ve been asked on how to get an injunction in the BVI. Find our top 11 questions here.
Expanded jurisdiction for interim orders issued by Cyprus courts
The Cyprus legal system has been subject to recent reforms which seek to streamline its processes and offer efficient recourse to the courts in dispute resolution.
The BVI Court dismisses Alfa Bank’s second injunction application: No second bite at the cherry
On 29 February 2024, the BVI Commercial Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in Joint Stock Company “Alfa-Bank” v Kipford Ventures Limited discharging the sanctioned Bank’s second application for an interim injunction against Kipford (the Second Injunction Application) and stayed its claim pending further order.
${ item.Title }
${ item.Description }