Offshore Litigation Blog

We cover 11 key questions we’ve been asked on how to get an injunction in the BVI. Find our top 11 questions here.

In Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Ford (Mex Group) the English Court of Appeal considered an appeal against a decision to set aside a worldwide freezing order, originally granted under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Section 25), sought in aid of proceedings before the Scottish Court relating to conspiracy claims.

It is well established that the main purpose of an asset disclosure order is to police a freezing injunction or, in other words, to ensure the continued effectiveness of the freezing order. In a recent decision concerning a summons for disclosure of information, the Cayman Islands Court provided a helpful summary on the applicable law that governs asset disclosure orders within the context of a worldwide freezing order, as well as the nature and justifiable extent to which disclosure of relevant assets can be sought.

The Cayman Islands Grand Court has recently dismissed an application to (i) discharge service and (ii) set aside a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in the case of The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC et al -v- Ammar et al (Unrep, Grand Court, 6 August 2024). This blog will focus on why Parker J dismissed the set aside application.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.