Cayman Islands Court of Appeal finds jurisdiction to grant freestanding Mareva relief against a non-party
In VTB Capital v Universal Telecom Management and another (Judgment 4/06/13), the Court of Appeal held that the Cayman Islands Court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction against a non‐party resident in the jurisdiction in support of proceedings against a third party in another jurisdiction. In so doing they disagreed with the first instance Judge Cresswell J, who had held that no such jurisdiction existed.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge’s analysis of the two Court of Appeal cases upon which he had relied, Algosaibi v Saad (15/02/2011) and Deloitte v Felderhof (12/07/2011), was wrong. The court went on to consider whether there were any other reasons why the judge’s conclusion could have been right, and found none…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Conyers Dill & Pearman briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Conyers Dill & Pearman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Conyers Dill & Pearman
Effective 1 December 2015, the British Virgin Islands Registry of Corporate Affairs will be offering premium services.
The Supreme Court has now “clarified”, in reality re-formulated, the applicable test for determining whether a particular contractual provision should be struck down as being a penalty.