Cayman Islands: Free-Standing Freezing Orders: Now Available In The Cayman Islands?

Last Updated: 26 August 2011
Article by Appleby  

Introduction

Free-standing freezing orders (or Mareva injunctions) have once again been considered by the Cayman Islands Grand Court.1 For the first time, a freezing order has been granted despite the absence of substantive proceedings in the jurisdiction. The judgment in Gillies-Smith has grabbed the legal headlines and has been heralded as a groundbreaking development in Cayman Islands law. This update examines the decision and considers its impact.

Facts

The parties to the case were a separated couple who had resided in Ontario, Canada in a property subject to a substantial mortgage. During the marriage the defendant (the husband) won C$15 million in a lottery and acquired significant assets, including a property in the Cayman Islands and at least two bank accounts with Cayman National Bank. According to the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant informed her that he wanted a divorce on April 29 2011 and left for the Cayman Islands on May 1 2011. He had not been in contact since. The plaintiff argued successfully in Canada that under Ontario law, assets acquired during the marriage were matrimonial property, and that the defendant had moved assets out of Canada and into the Cayman Islands while leaving her with joint liability for the mortgage on their Canadian property. The plaintiff obtained an injunction in Ontario freezing the defendant's assets, including the Cayman Islands property and bank accounts. She then sought and obtained ex parte a freezing order in the Cayman Islands in relation to the Cayman Islands property and bank accounts. Although the judgment is silent on the point, it would appear that the plaintiff wanted this freezing order so that she could enforce the Ontario order in Cayman Islands against third parties, including Cayman National Bank.

The plaintiff also sought and obtained leave to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction, presumably because she did not know his whereabouts.

Decision

The Cayman court considered jurisprudence from the Privy Council, the leading Cayman Islands decisions in Bass v Bass,2 Deloitte & Touche, Inc v Felderhof3 and Telesystem International Wireless Inc v CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners LP,4 as well as recent developments in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man (all three jurisdictions now recognise free-standing freezing orders). It concluded that the plaintiff had a justiciable cause of action in the Cayman Islands - namely, to give effect to the injunction issued in Ontario and to obtain a freezing order in the Cayman Islands until the final determination of the Ontario proceedings. On the facts, the court held that the freezing order should be granted.

This conclusion was apparently influenced by Lord Nicholls' dicta (from his dissenting speech in Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck5) about what could constitute a 'cause of action':

"They (practicing [sic] lawyers) do not always appreciate that the range of causes of action already extends very widely, into areas where identification of the underlying 'right' may be elusive...

If ... where the court is seized only of a claim for interim relief, that claim must bear the burden of being labeled a cause of action if intervention by the court is to be justified, let that be so. The law continues to adapt and develop."

The court considered the usual tests in freezing order cases, such as the necessity for a good arguable case, a real risk of the dissipation of assets and a consideration of the balance of convenience. It also apparently lent weight to considerations as to whether the grant of a freezing order would render the foreign proceedings more efficacious.

It also granted leave to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, Rule 1(1)(b) of the Cayman Islands Grand Court Rules, apparently on the basis that the freezing order sought was not in fact interlocutory but final, as no other remedy was sought within the Cayman Islands.

Comment

The court's judgment evidences the development of jurisprudence in offshore jurisdictions in recent times, and illustrates a willingness to offer freezing relief in the Cayman Islands where plaintiffs have been able to obtain a worldwide freezing order in their home jurisdiction which has application to assets in the Cayman Islands.

However, it still leaves several questions unanswered. There will be cases in which the plaintiff has been unable to gain such a freezing order. It is in such circumstances that a freezing order issued in the Cayman Islands may be most desired and needed by the plaintiff. Gillies-Smith did not consider this scenario, since the facts of the case were not aligned with it. But since the grant of a Cayman freezing order in Gillies-Smith was expressly made on the basis that the Ontario freezing order gave the plaintiff her justiciable cause of action in the Cayman Islands, the decision cannot be extended or deemed to apply in cases where the plaintiff has no such cause of action.

A more academic, but nonetheless relevant, question concerns the legal process which renders a worldwide freezing order enforceable with regard to third parties in the Cayman Islands. In cases where a plaintiff has obtained a worldwide freezing order in his or her home jurisdiction, but is concerned by an inability to enforce it against third parties in the Cayman Islands, he or she could (in theory) have two options. The first is to seek an order declaring that the worldwide freezing order is enforceable in the Cayman Islands6. The second is to obtain a further freezing order in respect of the Cayman Islands assets. The Gillies-Smith decision does not discuss these two options; the court was not asked to do so. Instead, it ordered a new freezing order, but one purportedly designed to enforce the Ontario freezing order. This appears to be a form of hybrid order between a declaration that the Ontario freezing order is enforceable in the Cayman Islands and a new freezing order relating to the Cayman Islands assets. The court did not comment on whether, if asked to do so, it would have declared the Ontario freezing order to be enforceable in the Cayman Islands.

A final question raised by Gillies-Smith is the relevance to this scenario of Order 11 Rule 1(1)(b) of the Grand Court Rules, which provides that a claim for an interlocutory injunction is not of itself sufficient grounds for service of a writ out of the jurisdiction. The court granted leave to serve the claim on the defendant outside the jurisdiction (his whereabouts being uncertain), apparently on the basis that the freezing order sought was a final injunction pending the determination of the Canadian proceedings, and not an interlocutory injunction. The exception in Rule 1(1)(b) was therefore held to be inapplicable. The reasoning of the court on the point is somewhat opaque and apparently contrary to earlier judicial thought in relation to similar injunctions. While the decision navigates a path around what appears to be an obstacle to the practical availability of free-standing freezing relief in the Cayman Islands against foreign defendants, the question of whether a free-standing freezing order can be seen not to be interlocutory will doubtless attract debate.

Further clarity in this developing area of law is welcome. Deploying the Gillies-Smith precedent, a plaintiff who has a worldwide freezing injunction against a defendant who has assets in the Cayman Islands can now argue that he or she has a sufficient cause of action in the Cayman Islands to obtain a local freezing injunction. However, by way of caveat, it must be noted that the reasoning of the Gillies-Smith decision has not been tested on an inter partes basis. Further, the decision diverges from English precedent and breaks new ground in the Cayman Islands, and as such is particularly vulnerable to a successful appeal or to being distinguished in future cases. While it is understood that an inter partes challenge is unlikely in the Gillies-Smith case itself, the position may develop as more applications for similar injunctions are presented to the Grand Court.

So the answer to the question of whether free-standing freezing orders are now available in the Cayman Islands is a qualified 'yes' at best. It must be noted that the court, on its own analysis, did not grant a free-standing freezing order in Gillies-Smith at all. Instead it found the plaintiff to have a cause of action in the jurisdiction. While the judgment does broaden the scope for the award of freezing orders, it does not open the door for free-standing freezing orders to be awarded in the Cayman Islands in all cases. A further category of free-standing freezing order, where the plaintiff does not have a worldwide freezing order from his or her home jurisdiction, remains untouched by the Grand Court's grant of relief to the plaintiff in Gillies-Smith. We must await another case on different facts to test whether the Grand Court will show as much enthusiasm for such free-standing freezing orders.

Footnotes

1 Gillies-Smith v Smith (Cause 173 of 2011)

2 2001 CILR 317

3 Cause No 845 of 1997

4 2002 CILR note 22

5 [1996] 1 AC 284

6 It is long established that a worldwide freezing order obtained in England may be declared enforceable should the freezing order so provide, the English court grants permission and the court in the relevant jurisdiction makes the relevant declaration: for example, Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others [2006] EWCA Civ 399.

Originally Published in International Law Office, August 11 2011

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cayman Finance
Maples and Calder
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cayman Finance
Maples and Calder
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions