Offshore Litigation Blog

In the recent decision of State House Trust v Friend Media Technology Systems the Jersey Royal Court allowed an appeal against the Master’s refusal to exclude an opinion from English counsel filed in support of a summary judgment application.

On 24 March 2026, Justice Segal handed down his long-awaited trial judgment in Laggner v Uphold, dismissing a petition to wind up a Cayman Islands digital money platform on just and equitable grounds. The Petition was filed on 14 June 2022. In the four years since, the matter has been before the Court on three interlocutory occasions, proceeded to a three-week trial, and culminated in a 349-page ruling.

In Re Fang Holdings Limited the Grand Court (Justice David Doyle) confirmed that a company cannot simply assert a right to participate in winding up proceedings brought by shareholders on just and equitable grounds. Without evidence of independent governance and a genuine separate and independent interest, the company was restricted to giving discovery alone.

A long-standing question in offshore trust practice concerns the role of the protector and the nature of their power.

In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company, the UK Supreme Court, by 4-1, overturned the Court of Appeal and held that no statutory limitation period applies to unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the CA).

In a previous blog post, we discussed the first instance judgment in the Phoenix BVI litigation, where Justice Mangatal considered the formalities for becoming a shareholder under s49 of the BVI Business Companies Act, Revised Edition 2020 (BCA). That judgment has now been appealed, with an accompanying application for a stay of execution.

In the recent decision of Unicorn Biotech Ventures One Ltd v Unicorn Biotech Ventures Two Ltd the Grand Court has for the first time considered the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to compel parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) against their wishes, and if so, what factors should be taken into account.

In Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investment II Master Fund Ltd & Ors the Privy Council (on appeal from Bermuda) held on July 24 that the so-called “Shareholder Rule” should be abrogated.

In the recent decision of RCF VII Sponsor LLC v Blue Gold Ltd, the Cayman Islands Grand Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant company from holding an extraordinary general meeting, demonstrating the Court’s flexible approach to injunctions and cross-undertakings where the balance of convenience favours early judicial intervention.

The Privy Council has just handed down judgment in Fang Ankong & Anor v Green Elite (in liquidation) which clearly restates how the Duomatic principle is to be applied and, in particular, the need for certainty, knowledge and an actual assent that can be objectively established.

The decision of Justice Mangatal in Ming v JF Ming Inc is the latest judgment from the long-running family dispute and unfair prejudice proceedings over JF Ming Inc (JFM), a BVI holding company with subsidiaries holding substantial real estate in Hong Kong.

In Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd the Privy Council (on appeal from the Court of Appeal for Bermuda) held that shareholders who acquired their shares after the date of notice of the meeting at which a proposed amalgamation would be voted on, and with knowledge that the proposed amalgamation would be approved and implemented, had standing to pursue fair value appraisal proceedings under section 106 of the Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda.