Offshore Litigation Blog

In a recent decision of the Cayman Islands Grand Court, Justice Asif KC granted leave to serve foreign defendants out of the jurisdiction and extended the validity of a writ to accommodate service under the Hague Convention: Linksure Global Ltd v Infinite Solution Ltd.

Harneys secured a significant recovery of approximately €9 million for our client through garnishee (attachment of debt) proceedings against two major banks in Cyprus.

On 8 July 2025, New Horizon Health Limited (the Company), a Cayman company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), filed a petition to appoint provisional liquidators (PLs).

In a recent decision of In the matter of TROOPS Inc, the Grand Court declined to appoint joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) on an ex parte basis over TROOPS Inc. (the Company). The ruling provides a useful reminder of the Court’s “especially cautious” approach to pressing the “nuclear button” of appointing JPLs, especially when that appointment is sought on an ex parte without notice basis.

In Target Global Growth Fund II v Liu Xun, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands granted the Plaintiffs’ application for a worldwide freezing injunction against the Defendant’s assets up to a value of US$35 million, as well as a proprietary injunction targeting specific assets.

In Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC v Al Sari, the English Commercial Court granted a declaration sought by the Bank that a United Arab Emirates Court judgment in favour of the defendants was obtained by fraud. The decision also clarifies that the rule in House of Spring Gardens v Waite (No 2) does not apply to enforcement proceedings, such that a party is not precluded from re-litigating the issue of fraud in a domestic court where the same issue had been dismissed in the foreign court.

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.

The UK Supreme Court has recently provided important clarification as to the breadth of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd (Bilta), holding that it is not intended to apply only to persons exercising management or control of the company’s business, but extends also to third party outsiders who have assisted or knowingly become parties to the carrying on of fraudulent business.

In the recent unreported decision of Clico International Life Insurance Ltd & Anor v Eastern Caribbean Baptist Mission & Ors, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (COA) provided useful guidance on when it is appropriate to “lift the veil”, as an exception to the well-established legal principle that companies have separate legal personality.

The recent English High Court decision in Kireeva v Clement Glory Limited considered conflicts of law principles for the purposes of determining the location of shares in a BVI company and whether the English Court had jurisdiction to hear a trust claim regarding the beneficial ownership of BVI shares.

Perhaps inevitably given the exponential growth in the value of the crypto market in recent years, courts all over the world are now tasked with resolving an increasing number of crypto-related disputes. Within the context of crypto recovery claims, this has invariably required the court to grapple with the underlying blockchain technologies.

In the recent decision of Rodrigues v Wakefield Quin Limited, the Supreme Court of Bermuda clarified the high threshold for pleading fraud; determined it had not been met on the facts of the case; struck out the case and made an indemnity costs award against the plaintiffs and their Bermuda counsel for pleading fraud without “credible material” to establish a prima facie case of fraud.