Norwich Pharmacal orders: the right medicine for third party disclosure of information and documents in the Cayman Islands

Published: 4 Aug 2022

Type: Insight

Primary Contact

Sebastian Said

Partner: Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2766
E [email protected]

Susan Fallan

Partner: Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2767
E [email protected]

Sebastian Said, Susan Fallan

A Norwich Pharmacal order (NPO) is a disclosure order available in the Cayman Islands to compel a third party who has been somehow ‘mixed up’ in wrongdoing to disclose certain information and/or documents to help the applicant identify and/or pursue a potential defendant to future proceedings, whether those proceedings are to take place in the Cayman Islands or overseas.

Obtaining a NPO can be a very effective tool in obtaining crucial information held in the Cayman Islands that is needed to pursue a claim against the ultimate wrongdoer anywhere in the world, which the applicant would struggle to obtain by other means.

A recent helpful decision

In Hangzhou Lingqin Investment v Harneys Liquidation Services (Cayman) Ltd and another (unreported, 7 June 2022, FSD 65 of 2022 (MRHJ)), the Grand Court has again shown its willingness to grant NPOs in the right circumstances, on this occasion against a Cayman based registered office and corporate filing agent (the defendants).

In Hangzhou Lingqin, plans were afoot to file proceedings in Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands against the ultimate wrongdoer: a Cayman Islands company referred to as Tongfang SPC (the Company). The Company was to be sued over a substantial unpaid debt, when it was discovered that it had been put into voluntary liquidation without notice to the creditor, and without paying the debt.

The applicant applied for a NPO against the defendants to obtain corporate documents and information held about the Company in the Cayman Islands, for use in applying to restore the Company to the Cayman corporate registry, a potential consequent winding up order, and/or for bringing proceedings against certain parties before any court or tribunal (including arbitration) in any jurisdiction.

The defendants’ position was that their involvement in the Company’s voluntary liquidation was limited to their roles as registered office and filing agent respectively. The defendants required the applicant to seek a NPO as some of the information required was confidential, and took a neutral stance in the application.

The Court granted the application, while providing a useful reminder of the criteria for obtaining a NPO in the Cayman Islands.

Criteria for obtaining an NPO

There must be a good arguable case that a wrong has been carried out
In Hangzhou Lingqin, this test was met because the Court was satisfied that the Company and its voluntary liquidator had been aware of the outstanding debt (having received a letter of demand), yet proceeded anyway to dissolve the Company without giving notice to the applicant as a creditor, and without paying the debt due.
The order must be necessary to enable action to be brought against the ultimate wrongdoer
As part of this consideration, the Court re-confirmed that “necessity” means there must be no other straightforward, available, or any, means of finding out information that is central to the applicant’s ability to obtain relief for proven or suspected wrongdoing.
The Hangzhou Lingqin application was found to plainly meet this test, as the applicant had no other means of obtaining the corporate information and documents in question.
The defendant must (a) be mixed up in the wrongdoing; and (b) able (or likely to be able) to provide the information needed to enable the ultimate wrongdoer to be sued
In Hangzhou Lingqin the defendants did not dispute that they had been mixed up in the wrongdoing.
As it turned out, the first defendant had not played any role in the liquidation at all, but had erroneously been advertised as voluntary liquidator in the Cayman Islands Gazette.
The second defendant had been involved in the voluntary liquidation, but only to the extent of its role as registered office and filing agent, which required submitting certain documents relevant to the liquidation to the Cayman Registrar of Companies.
The defendants also accepted that they would be able to provide, at least in part, the information the applicant was requesting.

Outcome

In Hangzhou Lingqin, the parties were able to agree the terms of a draft order to ensure that the disclosure required was proportionate and limited to relevant material only.

The Court then made its order on those terms, obliging the defendants to disclose, among other things, the books and records of the Company, all documents relating to the outstanding debt (including correspondence between the Company and the voluntary liquidator), various reports, certificates and other records.

More publications

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice

22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Richard Grasby, Steven Yuen

22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Kitty Chan

20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation. But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2] The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up. The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

Andrew Jackson

14 Apr 2026

No Rubber-Stamping: Continuation Of Restructuring Officer Appointments In The Cayman Islands

Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin, Luke Burgess-Shannon

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial

7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Marcus Staff, Kamarya James

30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Martin Byers, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin

19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

Martin Byers, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Maree Martin, Menelik Miller

9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.