Offshore Litigation Blog

On 8 July 2025, New Horizon Health Limited (the Company), a Cayman company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), filed a petition to appoint provisional liquidators (PLs).

In a recent decision of In the matter of TROOPS Inc, the Grand Court declined to appoint joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) on an ex parte basis over TROOPS Inc. (the Company). The ruling provides a useful reminder of the Court’s “especially cautious” approach to pressing the “nuclear button” of appointing JPLs, especially when that appointment is sought on an ex parte without notice basis.

In Target Global Growth Fund II v Liu Xun, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands granted the Plaintiffs’ application for a worldwide freezing injunction against the Defendant’s assets up to a value of US$35 million, as well as a proprietary injunction targeting specific assets.

In Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC v Al Sari, the English Commercial Court granted a declaration sought by the Bank that a United Arab Emirates Court judgment in favour of the defendants was obtained by fraud. The decision also clarifies that the rule in House of Spring Gardens v Waite (No 2) does not apply to enforcement proceedings, such that a party is not precluded from re-litigating the issue of fraud in a domestic court where the same issue had been dismissed in the foreign court.

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 UK Supreme Court has recently provided important clarification as to the breadth of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd (Bilta), holding that it is not intended to apply only to persons exercising management or control of the company’s business, but extends also to third party outsiders who have assisted or knowingly become parties to the carrying on of fraudulent business.

The recent English High Court decision in Kireeva v Clement Glory Limited considered conflicts of law principles for the purposes of determining the location of shares in a BVI company and whether the English Court had jurisdiction to hear a trust claim regarding the beneficial ownership of BVI shares.

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.

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 Dos Santos v Unitel SA, the English Court of Appeal clarified the threshold test of a “good arguable case” for granting worldwide freezing injunctions should be equivalent to that of a “serious issue to be tried” as applied in other types of interim injunctions, in accordance with the principles laid down in American Cyanamid.

The Commercial Court in England recently dismissed the Claimant bank's claim of a transaction to defraud creditors because the Bank had not properly pleaded the purpose for which it contended that the Defendant businessman had transferred assets to his family: Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini.

The High Court in England has held that a defendant company may rely on public law defences in opposition to a petition seeking the winding up of the company on public interest grounds: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Purity Limited.