The Court recognised that its primary task is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all parties and for the ends of justice. The “natural” or appropriate forum is that which the case has the most real and substantial connection. In doing so, the Court must consider and weigh up the connecting factors (or, the Spiliada  principles) to determine where the balance lies.

One argument raised was whether it would be appropriate for policy reasons for all disputes relating to fiduciaries of Cayman Islands investment vehicles to be determined in the Cayman Islands. In considering the principles applicable to forum non conveniens, Justice Doyle reviewed a number of earlier decisions where public policy factors had been canvassed; and concluded that it was bound by the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Brasil Telecom SA v Opportunity Fund  where Motley JA held that “[t]o take account of the public policy considerations…would…be another way of placing additional weight to the factor that jurisdiction to institute proceeding in the Cayman Islands has been founded as of right, because the respondent is incorporated and is domiciled in the Cayman Islands. To do so would make more onerous the burden on the respondent… [and give] undue weight to one factor… Such public policy considerations cannot co-exist, in this case, with the interest of the parties and the ends of justice, or fall within the Spiliada  principles.”

While Justice Doyle noted that the Court of Appeal or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might revisit this issue in the future, he held that his decision to grant the Plaintiff leave to serve the Defendants out of jurisdiction could not be based on public policy grounds. As matters stand at present, public policy factors should not be taken into account by the Court when determining the question of where the natural forum is located.

Justice Doyle held that Hong Kong, in whose favour the connecting factors in this case were “overwhelming”, is the appropriate forum. The Grand Court stayed the proceedings against the Cayman Islands Defendant, discharged the ex parte service out order against the overseas Defendants and declared that the Cayman Islands court has no jurisdiction over the overseas Defendants in respect of this claim.

Harneys acted for the successful Defendants in this application.