CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice Contributed by: Guy Manning, Harry Shaw and Shaun Tracey, Campbells
Generally, the Cayman Islands courts take a robust approach to the recognition and enforcement of for - eign arbitral awards, while ensuring that the defend - ant is given an opportunity to apply for enforcement to be set aside. For instance, in Re China Hospitals Inc [2018 (2) CILR 335], a petitioner was entitled to rely upon a Hong Kong arbitral award as the basis for seeking to wind up a company even though the award was subject to a set-aside application in Hong Kong. An indemnity costs order has been made against a defendant who pursued a collateral action with the purpose of frustrating the enforcement of a conven - tion award. A refusal by the Cayman courts to enforce an award is exceedingly rare, and one of the few instances of enforcement being refused was subsequently over - turned by the court of appeal in Gol Linhas Aereas SA (formerly VRG Linhas Aereas SA) v Matlin Patterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP & Others [2020 (2) CILR 704], a decision upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ([2022] UKPC 21). In its judgment, the Privy Council referred not only to the great weight to be attached to the policy of sustain - ing the finality of international awards, but also to the policy of sustaining the finality of the determination of properly referred procedural issues by the courts of the supervisory jurisdiction (in that case, Brazil). Most recently, the Grand Court has given short shrift to enforcement challenges based on alleged mate - rial non-disclosure by the applicant at the ex parte enforcement application stage ( Al Haidar v Rao , Grand Court, unreported judgment of Kawaley J dated 15 April 2024, and Carrefour Nederland BV v Suning International Group Co Limited , Grand Court, unre- ported judgment of Kawaley J dated 15 April 2024 (“Carrefour”)). The latter case of Carrefour was the subject of an appeal hearing on 12 May 2025 in rela - tion to service requirements, with judgment reserved.
The Grand Court has also recently confirmed that the court does not have jurisdiction to add any rider or addendum to an arbitral award. Rather, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the award or refus - ing to enforce it where any of the Section 7 grounds are established ( White Crystals Ltd v IGCF General Partner Limited , Grand Court, unreported judgment of Ramsay-Hale CJ dated 2 April 2024). As well as the pure question of enforcement of an arbi - tral award, issues may arise in the context of applica - tions for ancillary relief, such as a Norwich Pharmacal order or the granting of protective measures such as an injunction. For example, the court of appeal deci - sion in Essar Global Fund Limited v ArcelorMittal USA LLC [2021 (1) CILR 788] concerned non-satisfaction of a USD1.38 billion arbitral award in favour of the respondent, to whom the Grand Court had granted Norwich Pharmacal relief requiring the appellants to provide information and documents. In dismissing the appellants’ appeal, the court of appeal readily over - came a technical procedural objection to the enforce - ability of the foreign award in the Cayman Islands, and provided guidance as to when non-satisfaction of an arbitral award may amount to sufficient wrongdo - ing justifying the grant of Norwich Pharmacal relief. The court of appeal decision was upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which refused leave to appeal on the grounds that the case did not raise any arguable point of law and the court of appeal was right for the reasons given. Most recently, the court of appeal decision in Minsheng Vocational Education Company v Leed Education Holding Lim- ited & Others (unreported judgment dated 28 March 2024) upheld the first instance decision by Segal J to grant an injunction pursuant to Section 54 of the Arbi - tration Act in support of foreign arbitration proceed - ings. This decision represents a robust confirmation of the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands courts to grant interim protective measures in support of foreign arbitration proceedings in appropriate cases.
82 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook