Cayman Islands: Order Of Precedence

Arbitration, choice of forum clauses and winding up proceedings in the Cayman Islands: which takes precedence?

As in many other jurisdictions, there are statutory provisions in the Cayman Islands requiring the courts to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists which applies to the subject matter of the proceedings. Similar principles apply in the case of foreign exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

Several recent decisions have helped to clarify the relationship between the courts' exclusive statutory jurisdiction to wind up companies and exempted limited partnerships ("ELPs") and the ability of a party that opposes a winding up petition to enforce a prior arbitration or foreign exclusive jurisdiction agreement which is said to require the petitioner to have their claim determined in another forum.

Companies and ELPs are two legal vehicles frequently established in the Cayman Islands. Disputes between their stakeholders and claims against them by creditors commonly find their way before the courts in the form of winding up proceedings. In addition, winding up proceedings, and related claims for alternative relief under section 95(3) of the Companies Law (2013 Revision), have greater prominence in the Cayman Islands than in some other common law jurisdictions as a way for minority shareholders and limited partners to assert their rights, given the absence of a standalone unfair prejudice remedy in the Cayman Islands. It is therefore important in the Cayman Islands that there is a clear delineation between the types of disputes

which parties can agree to have resolved by arbitration or a foreign court and those which fall within the courts' exclusive winding up jurisdiction.

The approach that the courts have taken to this issue in relation to petitions by creditors on the grounds of insolvency differs somewhat from the approach in relation to petitions by shareholders or limited partners under the court's 'just and equitable' winding up jurisdiction. Each will be considered separately.

Creditors' petitions

It is well established that the courts' winding up jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a creditor in respect of a debt which is disputed on bona fide and substantial grounds. A winding up petition based on a disputed debt is liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The first of the recent decisions to consider this issue in the context of an arbitration clause was Re Times Property Holdings Limited [2011] CILR 223. A creditor petitioned to wind up a company on the grounds of insolvency. The company argued that the debt was disputed in light of arbitration proceedings underway in Hong Kong where the company's indebtedness to the creditor was to be determined. The court referred to the above principles relating to disputed debts and to the principle that parties should be held to their bargains. Although satisfied that there was a genuine dispute as to the debt, Foster J gave as his primary reason for staying the petition that:

" is not appropriate for this Court, even if minded to do so, to deprive the Company of putting its case and pre-judging the issue by seeking to determine the Company's dispute of the alleged indebtedness has no real substance. It seems to me that that question is for the arbitral tribunal in Hong Kong..."

By way of alternative conclusion, the judge found that, if he was wrong to adopt the above approach, the company's dispute of the alleged debt was on bona fide and substantial grounds. Foster J's primary conclusion suggests that the mere existence of proceedings in another forum, or a contractual right to have disputes resolved in another forum, is sufficient for the court to dismiss a winding up petition without having to determine whether the grounds of dispute are bona fide and substantial. In our view this would be an unorthodox approach to adopt and, as will be seen below, the courts have moved away from this position in subsequent decisions.

The same issue arose shortly afterwards in Re Duet Real Estate Partners 1 LP (Unreported, Grand Court, 7 June 2011). In that case, a Cayman Islands ELP (Duet) sought an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition against it on the basis that there was a genuine dispute about two debts said to be owed to a Luxembourg company (ESO) which had financed a resort project in Saint Barthélemy. The agreement in question contained a London arbitration clause and Duet had commenced arbitration proceedings. The basis of the alleged dispute over the debts was that Duet and ESO had made an oral agreement by which ESO had exchanged its rights under the financing documents for an equity interest in the resort project. Jones J found this argument to be "thoroughly disingenuous" in light of the contemporaneous documentary evidence which was inconsistent with any such oral agreement. The court found Duet's argument, that there was a genuine dispute over the debts, to be nothing more than a delaying tactic and dismissed its application.

The court did not mention the decision in Re Times Property Holdings Limited in its judgment. It is however clear that Jones J considered that that court was required to assess whether there was a genuine dispute over the debts and was not prevented from doing so by the existence of the arbitration clause or the arbitration proceedings in London. Jones J reached the same conclusion on similar facts in the later decision Re Ebullio Commodity Master Fund L.P. (Unreported, Grand Court, 24 May 2013).

Two further decisions have also adopted the approach of Jones J in Re Duet and Re Ebullio rather than the primary reasoning of Foster J in Re Times Holdings Limited. In Re SRT Capital SPC Ltd (Unreported, Grand Court, 22 November 2013) Foster J again had to consider this issue in the context of a petition by Morgan Stanley and Co International PLC against a Cayman Islands company, SRT Capital SPC Ltd, based on a debt alleged to be due from SRT pursuant to a swap transaction. The swap transaction documents contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. SRT argued that there was a dispute over the debt by virtue of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Morgan Stanley and that certain provisions of the transaction documents were unenforceable. SRT argued that it was contractually entitled to put these arguments to the English court.

Foster J referred to his decision in Re Times Holdings Limited and noted that "[t]he circumstances in [that case], upon which reliance was placed, were also different", although without giving any explanation as to why. The judge went on to note that it was "clear anyway that in that case, in which there were clearly factual issues, [he] gave consideration to whether the company's grounds for disputing the alleged debt were substantial". Foster J then considered whether there was a genuine dispute over the alleged debts and concluded that there was, dismissing the petition.

Finally, in Huawei Technologies v Hits Africa (Unreported, Grand Court, 29 November 2013), a case involving a debt alleged to be due to the petitioner for the provision of telecom equipment and services to a Cayman Islands company pursuant to an agreement that contained an arbitration clause, Quin J expressly adopted the approach of Jones J in Re Duet and Foster J in Re SRT Capital. On the evidence before the court, Quin J held that there was no genuine and substantial dispute over the debt and made an order winding up the company.

Petitions under the court's 'just and equitable' jurisdiction

Under the provisions of the relevant legislation, companies and ELPs can be wound up where "the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable" to do so. There is no single definition of the circumstances that make it just and equitable for the court to make a winding up order, but they have been held to include where the purpose for which a company or ELP was established is no longer capable of being achieved, and where there has been a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in management.

Where a winding up petition is filed against a company or ELP on just and equitable grounds and its constitutional documents contain an arbitration clause, a similar question to the above arises as to the circumstances in which the court should decline jurisdiction in favour of arbitration.

That issue arose in Re Cybernaut Growth Fund LP. (Unreported, Grand Court, 23 July 2013) which concerned a petition for the winding up of an ELP by limited partners representing 49.96% of limited partnership interests, on the grounds of a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the management of the ELP. The limited partnership agreement contained a New York arbitration clause and the general partner and majority limited partner applied to the Cayman Islands court to have the petition stayed or struck out on the grounds that the dispute had to be determined by arbitration in New York.

The issue before the court required consideration of comments made by Patten LJ in the English Court of Appeal decision Fulham Football Club (1986) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333. Although confirming that an arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a winding up order, the Fulham decision gave rise to the question of whether the tribunal could decide matters which might form the basis for a winding up order, but without going so far as to actually make a winding up order.

The court held that a just and equitable winding up petition such as that before it was not arbitrable for two reasons. First, a winding up order is capable of affecting third parties, whereas the source of an arbitral tribunal's power is contractual and so its orders only bind the contracting parties. Secondly, a dispute as to the identity of the liquidator to be appointed involves consideration of matters of public interest which are only suitable for determination by the court.

The court held that a stay of winding up proceedings in favour of arbitration would only be appropriate where the petition included either discreet inter partes claims, or matters which could be tried as preliminary issues, falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement. As neither situation applied in this case, the court concluded that the petition was non-arbitrable and dismissed the stay application.

It now seems clear as a matter of Cayman Islands law that a party opposing a creditor's winding up petition by relying on an arbitration or foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause must show that it has bona fide and substantial grounds for disputing the debt before it can have the petition dismissed. The weight of authority indicates that the Cayman Islands courts must test the submission that they lack jurisdiction to make winding up orders by asking whether there is in fact a genuine dispute over the debt, or whether the choice of forum provision is being invoked for purely tactical reasons. Similarly, the Cayman Islands court has shown that it will take a robust and proactive approach to jurisdiction when faced with a just and equitable winding up petition, as set out in the Cybernaut judgment.

These decisions are welcome as providing some clarity as to the relationship between the Cayman Islands courts' exclusive winding up jurisdiction and contractually agreed methods of dispute resolution. It is hoped that they will reduce the opportunity for parties to employ jurisdictional arguments to delay or frustrate appropriate substantive relief being granted where it is appropriate.

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

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

Events from this Firm
28 Apr 2016, Webinar, George Town, Cayman Islands

A topical discussion on recent updates covering some of the more frequently asked questions around FATCA and CRS.

29 Jun 2016, Webinar, George Town, Cayman Islands

This webcast focuses on the impact FATCA and CRS are having on structured finance vehicles set up in the BVI, Cayman Islands and Ireland and covers in detail the impending reporting and notification deadlines in each of these jurisdictions.

11 Aug 2016, Webinar, George Town, Cayman Islands

Our panel of experts will reflect on the impact of LLCs in the month since the first available registration date and discuss why the LLC was introduced and how it can be used to help our clients.

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”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.