Offshore Litigation Blog

On 17 February 2025, the BVI Court recognised a Committee, appointed by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, with responsibility over the financial affairs of a family member who lacks capacity and has movable assets in the BVI.

It is an established principle of insolvency law that the passage of time does not prevent claims which were not statute-barred at the date of insolvency from being proved later during the insolvency, even though the limitation period has in the meantime expired. This principle derives from the English decision of General Rolling Stock.

In the long running litigation concerning The Port Fund (the Partnership), a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, the Cayman Grand Court recently clarified the principles concerning applications for approval of court appointed receivers’ remuneration and expenses in the absence of any formal rules or process.

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 In the Matter of Bo Run SPC, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered whether it was permissible to file a composite petition to appoint receivers to a number of segregated portfolios within a single segregated portfolio company as opposed to filing separate petitions for each segregated portfolio.

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…

On 24 Mar 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Mitsuji Konoshita and A.P.F. Group Co Ltd v JTrust Asia Pte Ltd (BVIHCMAP 2020/0017), leaving helpful guidance on discharging freezing and receivership orders from material changes in circumstances.

In the recent Grand Court case of Re Obelisk Global Fund SPC, Justice Parker has considered, for the first time, the correct insolvency test to be applied for the court appointment of a receiver over a segregated portfolio.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Re ICG I), Justice Doyle dismissed an application by a contributory for the appointment of joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) pursuant to section 104(2) of the Companies Act.

In the recent decision of Lam & CP Global v Tor Asia Master Fund & Ors, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ruled on the issue of costs following the discontinuance of proceedings.

Further to our first blog on the decision in Great Panorama (see here), we now turn to consider the Court’s treatment of certain pieces of evidence that were relied upon at the recent hearing in that case.

In Great Panorama International Ltd v Qin Hui & Ors, the BVI Court continued a freezing injunction made against BVI non-cause of action defendants associated with a foreign judgment debtor. In doing so the Court issued a judgment covering a wide-range of issues that will be of interest to those seeking to enforce debts against and preserve the assets of BVI companies. In this blog we consider the court’s pronouncements regarding its jurisdiction to grant Chabra relief and the extent of the applicant’s duty to give full and frank disclosure. In the sequel to this blog we will consider the Court’s treatment of findings made by another court that was relied upon as evidence and the Court’s response to an attempt to introduce evidence post order/judgment.