Offshore Litigation Blog

After a long week’s work, it is always a pleasure to grab a pint of beer with your colleagues. It is no different at Harneys’ Hong Kong office, and in fact we go way beyond that to enjoy beers. We frequent popular craft beer joints around the city, have had beer tasting sessions with our business partners as networking events and internally as team events to strengthen the bonding among team members. Why? It is because our Counsel Sui Hung Yeung is a beer enthusiast, to the extent that he has been regularly acting as a beer judge and brewing his own beers at home. As you can tell, the team has been benefitting a lot from his passion for beer.

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.

Two recent decisions illustrate the caution parties should exercise before taking steps that may fall outside the protection afforded by the rules of privilege: (1) a recent English High Court decision – Mornington 2000 LLP (t/a Sterilab Services) and another company v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2025] EWHC 540 (TCC); and (2) a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Bermuda – Moir v Andrew [2025] SC (Bda) 28 Civ (11 March 2025)(Bermuda).

The Cayman Islands Grand Court has awarded indemnity costs in respect of an abusive application for the deferral of a company’s dissolution upon the completion of its voluntary liquidation: In re Skye Assets Fund SPC (in Voluntary Liquidation).

In the recent case of J&J Snack Foods Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd, the English Court discharged a freezing injunction and an access and imaging order due to multiple and serious failures by the Claimants to adhere to their duty of full and frank disclosure and fair presentation. The Court also saw insufficient grounds for re-granting any freezing injunction. This decision highlights the fundamental responsibility of an applicant seeking an ex parte injunction to put matters fairly to the Court, including articulating any anticipated defences and addressing any weaknesses in the applicant’s own case properly.

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.

It is common ground that Hong Kong is a major international arbitration hub in Asia, and its role will only become ever more important given the advantages in enforcing Hong Kong arbitral awards in Mainland China.

On 19 February 2025, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC. The case concerned the interpretation of section 423 of the English Insolvency Act 1986 which provides remedies to creditors in circumstances where a debtor has taken steps to defeat or prejudice their claims by entering into a transaction at an undervalue.