Cayman Islands: Cayman Law Amended To Facilitate The Grant Of Interim Relief In Aid Of Foreign Proceedings

Last Updated: 5 November 2014
Article by David Butler

In modern litigation there is often a strong possibility that obtaining interim relief from the court of the jurisdiction in which you are suing your opponent will not fully protect you against the dissipation by him of assets which you either claim are yours or will in due course seek to realise to satisfy your judgment. The defendant may, for example, have sought to put assets beyond reach by moving them overseas, often into trusts or corporate structures in one of the International Financial Centres.

As every good litigator will know, in the common law world service of process on the defendant is the means by which jurisdiction is established over that defendant. The service requirement presents a problem when the defendant in litigation in an onshore jurisdiction has put his assets offshore in a country in which he is not resident. The traditional rule holds that if you cannot sue the defendant in the offshore jurisdiction then you cannot get any interim relief against him there, either.

In response to the increasing internationalisation of commercial fraud, and concerned that their jurisdictions would gain a reputation for being a place where fraudsters could safely hide assets, the courts of a number of jurisdictions – including Jersey, the Isle of Man, and the BVI – either ignored, departed from or circumvented the traditional rules concerning service and jurisdiction so as to be able to grant interim relief to claimants in support of the onshore litigation. As this judicial activism ran contrary to established principle in the common law world, the legislatures of many of those International Financial Centres have now put the rules on a statutory footing to avoid the judicial development being overruled.

In contrast to the judicial activism seen in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and other Caribbean jurisdictions, the courts in the Cayman Islands have adhered to the conventional approach. One reason for this was that Cayman’s civil procedure rules made provision for the service of process out of the jurisdiction but expressly prohibited the Cayman courts from granting permission to serve a defendant out of the jurisdiction with proceedings where the only relief sought by the claimant was an interim injunction. The Cayman court has thus felt constrained to follow the policy that its legislature set many years previously and has refused to allow foreign claimants to obtain interim relief against overseas defendants unless it was part and parcel of substantive proceedings being litigated here.

A series of recent cases had limited the practical barriers to freezing assets held by Cayman entities on behalf of wrongdoers, but adherence to the conventional view has the potential to produce some anomalous results. If the defendant has put assets into a Cayman Islands company, it may be possible to obtain interim relief against that company because it is domiciled in the Cayman Islands. There is no need for the claimant to show that it has a substantive cause of action against the company, provided the claimant can show that the assets which the company holds are held beneficially for the defendant and that, by some process of enforcement, the assets can be realised by the claimant to satisfy any judgment which it might obtain. Conversely, however, if the defendant owns land or moveable property in his own name in the Cayman Islands, the claimant cannot obtain interim relief in respect of the land. The availability of the relief against the company has perhaps become more important in light of the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal which reminds litigants that a company is a separate legal person and its assets belong to it, not to its sole shareholder (see Lakatamia Shipping Company v Nobu Su [2014] EWCA Civ 636) such that freezing orders made against a defendant do not apply directly to the assets of a company in which the defendant is the sole shareholder.

New legislation came into force on 20 October 2014 in the Cayman Islands facilitating the granting in the Cayman Islands of interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings. That legislation – the Grand Court (Amendment) Law (Amendment Law) – is in very similar terms to amendments made to Hong Kong’s High Court Ordinance.

By the Amendment Law a new Section 11A is inserted into the Grand Court Law of the Cayman Islands. The new section 11A gives the Grand Court the power to make an order appointing a receiver or orders for any other interim relief which it would have the power to grant in proceedings within its jurisdiction in respect of proceedings which have or are to be commenced in an overseas court which are capable of giving rise to a judgment which may be enforced in the Cayman Islands under any Law or at common law. By section 11A(4) the Grand Court is given the power to make such orders for interim relief even if the cause of action which is being litigated in the foreign proceedings is not a cause of action which could be litigated in the Cayman Islands. It is also expressly provided in section 11A(4) that the order does not need to be ancillary or incidental to any proceedings in the Cayman Islands.

By the new section 11A(5) the Court is entitled to refuse an application for interim relief if in its opinion it would be unjust or inconvenient to make an order. And by section 11A(6) the Court is required to have regard to the fact that the power is ancillary to proceedings that have been or are to be commenced in a place outside the Islands and that the purpose of the power is to facilitate the process of the foreign court that has primary jurisdiction over the dispute.

The enactment of the Amendment Law is a helpful development. It will enhance the reputation of the Cayman Islands as a jurisdiction committed to judicial cooperation in international fraud cases by making it possible for foreign claimants to obtain interim relief in Cayman in aid of their foreign proceedings.

For practitioners the important questions are likely to be what the claimant needs to do to satisfy the Cayman court that it should make an order and the circumstances in which the court will decline to make an order. As to the first, the claimant will obviously need to show that it falls within the conditions specified in section 11A(1), namely that there are proceedings which are or are to be commenced in a court overseas which are capable of giving rise to an judgment enforceable in Cayman.

The term “a judgment which may be enforced in the Islands” in section 11A(1)(b) raises an interesting point. A proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction which imposes a penalty under that country’s criminal law or seeks the payment of tax will not be enforceable in the Cayman Islands at common law so there is little prospect of any orders in aid being obtained in respect of such proceedings. The issue which raises the most potential for difficult issues to arise is whether a claim in the foreign court which seeks a proprietary remedy or an order for specific performance – for example the transfer of property other than money said to have been stolen – is a judgment which “may be enforced” in the Cayman Islands. Judgments which order specific performance and which are sought to be enforced in another jurisdiction are strictly speaking the subject of proceedings for recognition in that other jurisdiction, not proceedings for their enforcement. There are some decisions of the Cayman court which hold that it is possible to “enforce” a judgment or order for specific performance, but that is a departure from the conventional wisdom which holds that only a judgment for a sum of money which is ascertained or ascertainable may be “enforced” at common law and there are conflicting first instance decisions on the point. It may be that the Cayman court will adopt a purposive, rather than a literal interpretation of the provision so as to permit orders in aid of proprietary claims, and in many cases the difficulty may be avoided by seeking monetary damages in the alternative in the action in the primary jurisdiction.

The claimant will also need to demonstrate to the court that it is not unjust or inconvenient to make the order sought. That effectively means the Cayman court will need to be satisfied at a minimum that the claimant would be granted the order if the application had been made in domestic proceedings in the Cayman Islands. So in the case of an application for a freezing order, the court would need to be satisfied that the claimant has a good arguable case against the defendant and that there is solid evidence of a real risk that the judgment will remain unsatisfied if no order is made. In a case where the underlying cause of action in the primary proceedings is not one that has a readily identifiable counterpart or analogue in the Cayman Islands, it may be necessary to obtain expert evidence on the laws of the primary jurisdiction to establish to the satisfaction of the Cayman court that the action which has been brought in the primary jurisdiction is justiciable there.

The Court will also need to be satisfied that considerations of justice and convenience favour the grant of the interim relief. This is reflected in section 11A(5), which provides that the court may refuse the relief if it considers it unjust or inconvenient to grant the application.

The Cayman court will not be without guidance as to what considerations of justice and convenience entail when considering an application for interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings. As has already been noted, many countries have for many years had rules permitting the grant of interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings and this question has already been the subject of consideration in those courts. Factors which the Cayman court is likely to take into account include:

(a)          Whether there are assets in the Cayman Islands which are sought to be frozen or whether any other relief sought would have the greatest effect if made by the Cayman court.
(b)          Whether the Cayman court can enforce the order effectively once it has been made.
(c)           In cases involving an application for a freezing order without notice to other parties, whether the Cayman court can be satisfied that all of the relevant material has been put before it by the applicant. In this regard, the Cayman court has been astute to ensure that full disclosure of all facts and matters which may be relevant to its decision or to the respondents’ objection to the order are disclosed. In VTB Capital plc v Malofeev the Cayman court ordered the plaintiff to disclose to a third party against whom a freezing order had been made all of the evidence which had been produced to the primary court in the main proceedings as the third party was not a party to those main proceedings.
(d)          Whether the order is necessary or will lead to duplication of relief or additional cost. If the primary court has made a worldwide freezing order, for example, it may not be necessary for an ancillary order to be made in Cayman. Equally, orders for disclosure of assets (often made as standard as part of the freezing order) may not be necessary in an order made in Cayman where the order made in the primary jurisdiction requires disclosure of assets wherever they are situated. In addition, it may not be necessary for the Cayman court to make a freezing order if sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment have been frozen in the primary jurisdiction or in the primary jurisdiction and another jurisdiction in which an ancillary order has been obtained.
(e)          Whether the applicant has failed to make, or the primary court has refused, an application for relief which is sought in the Cayman court.

The final substantive point of note is that the Amendment Law also brings about a subtle but important change in respect of the availability of interim relief against third parties who are resident within the Cayman Islands and who, it is alleged, hold assets beneficially on behalf of the defendant against whom the substantive claim is being prosecuted in the primary jurisdiction. Before the Amendment Law came into force, the position was that the third party within the jurisdiction of the Cayman court could be made the subject of a freezing order only if it could be shown (among other things) that the cause of action brought against the defendant in the primary jurisdiction was justiciable in the Cayman Islands. That was the position arrived at by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in VTB Capital plc v Malofeev [2013] (2) CILR 94. Sections 11A(1) and (4) of the Amendment Law have, however, removed that limitation such that interim relief is available in relation to foreign proceedings without the need to show that the foreign cause of action is justiciable in the Cayman Islands.

While the Amendment Law is now in force, the changes which it is necessary to make to the Grand Court Rules to provide for service out of the jurisdiction of this new form of relief have not yet been implemented. It is to be hoped that those changes are implemented swiftly, and that the absence of the necessary amendments to the rules of court does not impede the availability of this relief in the interim.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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
Related Articles
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
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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