Introduction

In a significant judgment, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) recently held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant security for costs against a petitioning foreign company in winding up proceedings. In Dyxnet Holdings Limited v Current Ventures II Limited and Current Ventures IIA Limited (Cause CICA 33/2013), the CICA overturned two Grand Court judgments dating back to 2010 which had prevented security for costs from being ordered in winding up proceedings against either a petitioning foreign individual or a petitioning foreign company.

Background

Before 1 March 2009, when the Companies Winding Up Rules (CWR) were introduced (and the Grand Court Rules (GCR) were amended), orders for security for costs could be made against petitioners in winding up proceedings which were foreign companies either by application of the GCR to winding up proceedings, or by reliance on the English Insolvency Rules 1986 and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) rule 25.13. However, following an amendment to the GCR and the introduction of the CWR (which provided that the Insolvency Rules 1986 should cease to have any application), the routes by which security could be ordered were no longer available. The CWR themselves makes no express provision for security for costs.

Section 74 of the Companies Law (2013 Revision) (the Law) provides a statutory power to make an order for security for costs against a Cayman Islands company in a case where that company is plaintiff and the Court is satisfied “that there is reason to believe that if the defendant is successful in its defence the assets of the company will be insufficient to pay his costs”. Company is defined in the Law as a company formed and registered under the Law or an existing company (a company which, prior to the 1st December, 1961, has been incorporated and its memorandum of association recorded in the Islands pursuant to the laws relating to companies then in force in the Island). Neither of these definitions applies to a foreign company.

Order 23 of the GCR gives the Court power to order a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction to give security for a defendant’s costs if it thinks it is just to do so. However, this rule does not apply to winding up proceedings, which are governed by the CWR. It is against this background that the Court of Appeal had to consider whether, following the introduction of the CWR, the courts in the Cayman Islands have an inherent jurisdiction to order a foreign company to provide security for costs in proceedings governed by those rules.

Type

Insight

Locations

Cayman Islands

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
18 Aug 2020 |

Private Funds Law, 2020 and New Rules on Contents of Marketing Material for Registered Private Funds

On 7 February 2020, Cayman’s Private Funds Law, 2020 (PFL) came into force, requiring any closed-e...

18 Aug 2020 |

Technology & Innovation update Q3 2020

In each quarterly issue of the Appleby Asia Alert, we bring you the latest offshore legislative and ...

18 Aug 2020 |

Economic Substance update Q3 2020

The latest Economic Substance updates announced by the relevant authorities in the BVI, Cayman and B...

18 Aug 2020 |

The facilitation of cross border restructurings in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands

In this update, we consider the powers and discretion of the domestic courts in Bermuda, the BVI and...

13 Aug 2020 |

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACS) make a comeback

In this global article on SPACs we revisit the basics, then look to each of our key jurisdictions fo...

14 Jul 2020 |

Commercial Real Estate in the Cayman Islands: An Overview

First published by Practical Law: Corporate Real Estate Global Guide - Cayman Islands update 2020. ...

30 Jun 2020 |

Protecting Personal Data – the New Normal

One unanticipated consequence of the COVID pandemic has been the huge increase in the collection of ...

Contributors: Jennifer Parsons