Offshore Litigation Blog

In Cyprus, companies that are struck off the official companies register maintained by the Department of Intellectual Property and Registrar of Companies in Cyprus (the Register and the Registrar) can be restored, mainly, through two routes: (1) administrative restoration by the Registrar; or (2) Court-ordered restoration.

Harneys successfully opposed a claimant’s application seeking the Court’s leave to testify via videoconference during civil proceedings, before the District Court of Limassol, due to alleged health issues that prevented the claimant from travelling to Cyprus to testify.

The Supreme Court of The Bahamas has recently ruled in Gabriele Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd & ors , providing a clear statement on when a court will refuse to halt an arbitration because of a pending challenge to the tribunal.

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 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 jurisdiction of the Cayman and BVI courts to adjudicate claims depends upon whether the defendant(s) to those claims can lawfully be served with originating process.

In the recent Cayman decision of L.R. Capital China Growth II Company Limited (LR Capital) v International Corporation Services Ltd (ICS) , Justice Asif refused preservation orders and sealing and gagging orders sought by the Plaintiffs in support of an intended Norwich Pharmacal application.

In the Abraaj General Partner VIII Ltd v Abraaj ABOF IV SPV Ltd, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has clarified the scope of a limited partner’s statutory right to receive “true and full information” under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act (2024 Revision) (ELPA) – and where the line should be drawn.

The anonymity which digital currencies and online trading more generally permit is one of the factors which makes the digital space so attractive to those seeking to perpetrate fraud. The claims that have come before the courts of England and Wales involving digital assets have almost exclusively been fraud cases. In these cases, the courts have generally taken a pragmatic approach, permitting such actions to be begun against the unidentified fraudsters as “persons unknown” and granting freezing and disclosure orders to assist in securing and recovering (so far as possible) the proceeds of the fraud.

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.

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.