E-signatures – Who needs ink anyway?

Published: 7 May 2020
Type: Insight

The global spread of COVID-19 and the sustained containment protocols in place including social distancing and quarantine, together with the anticipated prolonged remote working arrangements and travel restrictions, have brought some challenges to the way business must be done. This all means that many of our clients are now, more than ever, requiring the use of e-signatures to ensure corporate transactions can close where possible including the execution of transaction documents, corporate authorities and related documentation.

Fortunately, for Cayman this is simple and achievable.  The Electronic Transactions Law (2003 Revision) (ETL) puts electronic signatures on an equal footing with “wet ink” signatures in the Cayman Islands.


Technologically neutral, the ETL was established to promote public confidence in the validity, integrity and reliability of conducting transactions electronically and recognises electronic records as records created, stored, generated, received or communicated by electronic means.

The definition of an “electronic signature” under the ETL is deliberately broad:
“An electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with the intent to sign the electronic record”.

Electronic signing typically involves either affixing an electronic signature to a document or using a digital signature application like DocuSign or eSign.

COMMON LAW

The common law adopts a pragmatic approach to what will satisfy a signature requirement. In determining whether the method of signature adopted demonstrates an authenticating intention the courts adopt an objective approach, considering all of the surrounding circumstances.

The ETL is not prescriptive as to the method of authentication protocol used. An electronic signature will be considered to be reliable where:

  • the means of creating the electronic signature is linked to the signatory and to no other person;
  • the means of creating the electronic signature was, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory and of no other person; and
  • any alteration to the electronic signature, made after the time of signing, is detectable.


Statutory and Other Exceptions to Electronic Signatures of Any Kind

There are important notable exceptions.  Documents which cannot be signed electronically are:

  • Wills and other testamentary instruments.
  • Instruments which are required to be registered at the Cayman Islands Land Registry (including transfers of land, leases and charge instruments).

Electronic signatures should also not be used in Cayman where the requirements of a specific law, contract or an entity’s constitutional documents expressly provide (or may be interpreted to mean) that a hard copy document and wet ink signature are required.  Certain governmental, judicial or regulatory authorities may also require a wet ink original.  These exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis.

SPECIFIC Considerations

Different types of documents have different execution formalities.  Before an electronic signature is used, care must always be taken to ensure that any particular document is validly executed in accordance with the relevant statute and the requirements specific to the entity in question (for example, a company’s constitutional documents may require that deeds be executed under seal, or be signed by two directors).  Parties should also continue with the established practice of ensuring that the relevant signatory is duly authorised to sign and clear execution instructions are provided to signatories, as would be the case with ‘wet ink’ signing.

For further information please contact Caroline Barton or your usual Appleby contact.

Share
More publications
Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
4 Feb 2026

The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets.  The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information.  For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.