Cayman Islands: Is It An Offshore Sham? A Balanced Perspective Is Welcomed

Last Updated: 25 January 2009
Article by Sophia Harris

'these sophisticated offshore structures are very familiar nowadays to the judiciary who have to try them. They neither impress, intimidate, nor fool anyone. The courts have lived with them for years.'

- Coleridge J in J v V 2003 EWHC 3110 (Fam), 2004 1 FLR 1042

It is interesting to note the air of adversity that has intensified over the past few months between the powers that be of the onshore jurisdictions, and those of the offshore jurisdictions, particularly in the face of collapse of the economic stability of certain onshore jurisdictions. For those offshore jurisdictions that feel they have been well regulated and well managed over many years and have worked hard to ensure their good standing in the global market, it would seem unfair and unfounded. Such offshore jurisdictions take the view that it would require instead, introspective soul searching of those onshore jurisdictions that have allowed overall poor management and poor judgment to possibly cause their own demise. Such a demise that has regretfully taken along with them, other jurisdictions whose markets are naturally well intertwined with theirs.

It would seem inconceivable that Iceland itself could or would ever be able to look to an offshore jurisdiction, to point the finger at, as having any direct or indirect relation to their demise, especially as the direct ties to the US market seem undeniable.

All aspects of the offshore jurisdiction appear vulnerable to the blame game. The above quote from Coleridge J in J v V 2004 1 FLR 1042, brought an interesting perspective as to how offshore jurisdictions and their products might be viewed in the eyes of the onshore Court. A slightly venomous remark, that may or may not be justified, but one that certainly appears to have been spawned in retaliation to offshore legislation that has been designed to effectively address the legitimate needs of individuals or corporations who are proactive in legally addressing their own long term fiscal goals. Often these goals are not set in reaction to an existing problem but to preempt any potential problem down the line, having due regard to the existing laws of the day. Some may call it being fiscally responsible, be it for commercial or for personal purposes, to ensure the mitigation of possible losses that might be incurred in the event of certain circumstances.

How does one address the unfortunate perception by some, that all that is offshore must be a sham?

The case of A v A 2007 EWHC 99 brings, it seems, a much needed balanced perspective, where there is a legitimate transaction established under well established trust principles and having due regard to the relevant legislation of the jurisdiction.

The case of A v A involved ancillary relief proceedings following the breakdown of a relationship of almost 20 years. The matrimonial assets at stake included the husband's 23% shareholding and the wife's 22.98% shareholding in a family company which had been established by the husband's father many years ago. Two separate discretionary trusts held 54% of the shares in that company, one trust created by the husband's parents and the other by his brother before the marriage. The beneficiaries of the trusts were the children and remoter issue of the husband and remoter issue of the husband's parents. Therefore the husband, his children, their children and his brother were included as beneficiaries and so the group of beneficiaries was not closed which was an important point in this case.

There had also been a number of different trustees of the trusts over the years. At the time that the matter had been heard by Munby J, the trustees were a Jersey trust company and two accountants, but the trust itself was then governed under English law, although it started off as an offshore trust.

The wife asserted that the trusts were shams and therefore the husband should be ultimately treated as the owner of the 77% shareholding in the family company and, in the alternative, that the shares held by the trusts should be treated as available to the husband in accordance with the principle in Thomas v Thomas [1995] 2 FLR 668. There were other allegations befitting of the War of the Roses that helped to allow the trial to drag on from its start in December 2005 to its end with a judgment only in 2007. But I will not get into those other allegations in this article.

It turned out not to be a useful exercise to present two opposing cases for the Judge to choose from in the event he was not satisfied with the first argument proposed. The Judge noted the two cases presented to court were inconsistent with each other, the first case proceeding on the basis that the trusts were shams and the second on the basis that they were not shams but that the assets should be made available to her by treating the assets as though they were currently available to the husband as in Thomas v Thomas.

This tactic, it would appear, backfired on the wife's lawyers, and assisted the judge in focusing on the real issues at hand rather than disregarding the merits of the legitimate trust merely because it was a trust or because it originated in an offshore jurisdiction.

The wife did however allege that 'the reason for placing the shares in trust was because [the husband] was in the process of divorcing from his first wife and wished to present himself as a minority shareholder in that dispute' and that 'in practice' the husband 'controlled those shares'. The husband, the wife asserted, 'set out to do everything in his power to defeat his first wife's claims against him, including the creation of the offshore trusts as an integral part of the campaign'. A conspiracy theory that no doubt Coleridge J, might willingly subscribe to based on some apparently extensive unsavoury experience of his.

The presiding judge took into account the approach adopted by the court when faced with a pre-ordained series of transactions or a composite transaction which includes an artificial step inserted for no commercial purpose. But in a sobering moment for the wife's attorneys, the judge stated: "The court cannot grant relief merely because the husband's arrangements appear to be artificial or even 'dodgy'."

In referring to an earlier judgment of his in Re W (Ex Parte Orders) [2000] 2 FLR 927, Munby J also stated that he agreed with the robust approach of Coleridge J where appropriate. But Munby J also went on to state, 'On the other hand, and as Nicholas v Nicholas [1984] FLR 285...demonstrates, the court does not –in my judgment cannot properly- adopt this robust approach where, for example property is held by a company in which, although the husband has a majority shareholding, the minority shareholdings are what Cumming-Bruce LJ at 287G called 'real interests" held by individuals who...are not nominees but business associates of the husband.'

Munby J made a number of useful observations based on well established case law that are well worth restating here. The judge stated: "The court should adopt a robust, questioning and (where appropriate) skeptical approach to trust and company structures, but that did not mean that it could ride roughshod over established principles where third party interests were involved."

The Judge in giving reasons for his decision, referred to the classic definition of a sham given by Diplock LJ in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 at 802. That in order for there to be a sham, the acts or documents executed by the parties to the sham must be intended by them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties, legal rights and obligations different from the actual legal rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intended to create. For acts or documents to be a sham, all parties thereto had to have a common intention that the acts or documents were not to create the legal rights and obligations which they gave the appearance of creating. The need for common intention applied not only to bilateral transactions but equally to transactions such as settlement of property or the creation of a trust. What was required was common intention, but reckless indifference would be taken to constitute the necessary intention: Minwalla v Minwalla and DM Investments SA, Midfield Management SA and CI Law Trustees [2004] EWHC 2823 (Fam).

A review of the more recent case of Hitch v Stone (Inspector of Taxes) [2001] EWCA Civ 63 [2001] STC 214 was also undertaken, and in which it was noted that:

'...It is of the essence of this type of sham transaction that the parties to a transaction intend to create one set of rights and obligations but do acts or enter into documents which they intend should give third parties in this case the Revenue, or the court, the appearance of creating different rights and obligations....

An inquiry as to whether an act or document is a sham requires careful analysis of the facts....first in the case of a document, the court is not restricted to examining the four corners of the document...

Second, as the passage from Snook makes clear, the test of intention is subjective. The parties must have intended to create different rights and obligations from those appearing from (say) the relevant document, and in addition they must have intended to give a false impression of those rights and obligations to third parties...

Third, the fact that the act or document is uncommercial, or even artificial, does not mean that it is a sham....

Fourth, the fact that parties subsequently depart from an agreement does not necessarily mean that they never intended the agreement to be effective and binding...

Fifth, the intention must be a common intention' (see Snook).

As a matter of principle, a trust which was not initially a sham could not subsequently become a sham: Shalson v Russo [2003} EWHC 1637 (Ch). The only way in which a properly constituted trust which was not a sham ab initio could conceivably become a sham subsequently would be if all the beneficiaries were, with the requisite intention, to join together for that purpose with the trustees: Saunders v Vautier In re Smith, Public Trustee v Aspinall. In this case the judge made the determination that could not have happened as all the beneficiaries were as yet ascertained.

The Judge also noted that, as in A v A, a trust could not as a matter of law, be a sham if either the original trustees or the current trustees were not parties to the sham at the time of their appointment. The evidence showed that the trustees had at all times acted in good faith as professional persons and had conscientiously performed their fiduciary duties.

It is useful to take note of the cautionary words of the Judge as he states:
"In deciding whether or not, and, if so, in what manner these principles operate in any particular case, the court will of course have regard to the particular context and to the particular factual matrix....

It is important to appreciate (and too often, I fear, is not appreciated at least in this division) that the relevant legal principles which have to be applied are precisely the same in this division as in the other two divisions. There is not one law of 'sham' in the Chancery Division and another law of 'sham' in the Family Division. There is only one law of 'sham', to be applied equally in all three Divisions of the High Court..."

As for the Thomas v Thomas argument put forward by the wife's attorneys there were a few more sobering observations; the Judge stated: 'a Thomas and Thomas application ...usually proceeds on the assumption that the trustees are conscientiously acting in that capacity and that they will exercise their fiduciary powers bona fide and in a lawful manner'.

All in all it was a good day for the courts, with the judgment of A v A bringing back to law a sense of much needed balance in these challenging times.

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
 
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
 
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