1. The purpose of an asset disclosure order is to police the freezing injunction; ie to make the freezing order effective.
2. Not only is an asset disclosure order important to enable the party in whose favour it has been granted to identify the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in assets, it is also essential for that party to decide whether to take steps in relation to the respondent’s undertaking in damages.
3. Only information necessary to police the injunction order must be provided and nothing more.
4. The Court has the power to order disclosure of documents to support an asset disclosure order, and the power carries with it the power to make whatever ancillary orders are necessary to make the freezing injunction effective.
5. When exercising the power to order disclosure, the Court must be satisfied that the information sought is for a proper purpose. An example of proper purpose is when the information requested is to identify and preserve assets that may otherwise be dissipated notwithstanding the injunction. This will include obtaining information so that notice of the injunction can be given to third parties who will then become bound not to commit a contempt of Court.
6. The usual practice is to order the disclosure of all the respondent’s assets so that the respondent is not entitled to pick and choose what assets to disclose. There is no rule or practice that disclosure should be limited to assets having sufficient value to meet the maximum sum in the freezing order.
7. The fact that the information sought is confidential does not on its own entitle the respondent to withhold disclosure. Although it is an invasion of privacy to force a party to disclose such information, a freezing order in normal circumstances cannot be effective without such disclosure.
8. When a worldwide freezing order requires a party to disclose the value, location and details of assets, the meaning of “details” is considered to mean disclosure of sufficient information that will allow the claimant and the Court to know the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the relevant assets. The Court could order disclosure of a document if necessary for this purpose.
9. A party who is subject to a disclosure order must take reasonable steps to investigate the truth or otherwise of any answer they give regarding assets they have or had an interest in, but they are not required to make inquiries of persons in relation to assets in respect of which they no longer have any interest or right to information.

In this case, while the respondents had filed affirmations making various disclosures of their assets in purported compliance with an earlier disclosure order granted in conjunction with a worldwide freezing order, the applicant successfully persuaded the Grand Court that clarification of the initial disclosure made by the respondents was necessary to make the freezing order effective. While the above summary is not an exhaustive list of factors that must be considered before a party seeks to apply for asset disclosure orders ancillary to a worldwide freezing order, it nevertheless provides practical guidance on important factors that the Court will consider when granting (or rejecting) disclosure orders.

Although decisions from the Cayman Islands Courts do not directly apply in the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, they are persuasive in these offshore jurisdictions where freezing injunctions and ancillary disclosure orders are frequently sought in support of both domestic and foreign proceedings.