Offshore Litigation Blog

In a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Bermuda (‘Court’), Harneys and the joint provisional liquidators (‘JPLs’) of a Bermuda company (the ‘Company’) successfully argued that the Court’s power to summon officers of a company in liquidation or provisional liquidation before it for a private examination and delivery up of books and records under the Companies Act, 1981 (‘Companies Act’) has extra-territorial effect.

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 Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has issued a strong warning on the risks of using generative artificial intelligence in court proceedings in the recent decision in Samuel Johnson v Cayman Islands Health Services Authority [2025] CICA (Civ) 15 (Johnson v HSA).

Fraudsters sometimes choose offshore vehicles in their illegal schemes under the mistaken belief that the misappropriated assets will not be found or that the victims of fraud will not be able to identify the fraudsters.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has consistently favoured providing assistance to foreign courts to the fullest extent possible. This has again been demonstrated in the recent decision in Shen v Inspire Inc (No 2).

In a recent decision involving the China Evergrande Group, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance reaffirmed the policing provisions of disclosure orders under Mareva/freezing injunctions.

In the recent decision of In the Matter of Position Mobile Ltd SEZC, the Cayman Islands Grand Court has thoroughly reviewed the legal test as to whether the documents of a subsidiary are within the “power” of its parent company in the context of a specific discovery application in winding-up proceedings. The decision also serves as a helpful reminder on the importance of formulating specific discovery applications with precision and full particulars.

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.

Two recent decisions illustrate the caution parties should exercise before taking steps that may fall outside the protection afforded by the rules of privilege: (1) a recent English High Court decision – Mornington 2000 LLP (t/a Sterilab Services) and another company v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2025] EWHC 540 (TCC); and (2) a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Bermuda – Moir v Andrew [2025] SC (Bda) 28 Civ (11 March 2025)(Bermuda).

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.