Free-standing freezing orders: the Cayman view

| 03/03/2011

(International Law Office): The question as to whether a freezing order (or Mareva injunction) may be awarded in a jurisdiction where there are no related substantive proceedings has been a controversial subject in the offshore world in recent years. Traditionally, such ‘free-standing’ injunctions were not granted. More recently, certain offshore jurisdictions, whether by the development of case law or by statute, have performed a volte face and determined that such injunctions can be awarded in aid of related foreign proceedings.

These jurisdictions have determined that such free-standing injunctions should be awarded in certain cases. In the Cayman Islands, the position is less certain.

Go to commentary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World View

About the Author ()

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Let me preface this by stating that I am not a lawyer or trained legal professional.
    It amazes me how unwilling people are to educate themselves. If you don’t understand the content, take the time and the steps to learn. There are fantastic resources such as the internet, which you clearly know how to use if you were able to post disparaging remarks here, and these other lovely things called BOOKS, journals and magazines. There are also your family or friends who may have some information that can help you.
    If your only source of knowledge and understanding is to have things spelled out for you on CNS I feel very sorry for you.

  2. Anonymous says:

    When lawyers talk among themselves, the world need to tune out.

    • Henry Hill says:

      Tune out to your own detriment. When lawyers talk someone is about to get f@#$%ed.

    • Judge Dredd says:

      I tend to tune out anyone incapable of conjugation.

  3. Anne on a Moose says:


  4. Anonymous says:

    One can only wonder why there are no comments.

    • Anonymous says:

      Because no one has a clue what they are saying?

    • Claudius says:

      This is a self serving article and no one really wants to check in to give a response. Moreover the writer has missed out on some earlier cases in the Cayman Islands. These articles frequently written by lawyers in the press are merely part of bragging rights and of no interest whatsover to the local populace.They are certainly not newsworthy.

      • Brutus says:

        As this article was originally posted on an international law website, it was probably not aimed at the local populace who probably do not have a clue what it is about.  However the issue considered in this article is a very important one often raised by foreign lawyers, although to be fair most people asking the question do not understand how narrow the free-standing Mareva issue really is.  Cayman’s failure to expressly confirm that it has moved into the 21st century is detrimental to the reputation of the jurisdiction.

        Saying that the article is spot on and accurately reflects the current legal position.  The older Cayman cases are really of limited importance, and reflected a time when many of Cayman’s judgments were consistent with a far more secretive stage in the jurisdiction’s financial history.  At some point the modern legal position will be confirmed and Cayman brought into line with the other territories and dependencies.  It is only a question of when, not if.

        My guess is I would rather have the author of the article as my attorney that Claudius.


        • Claudius says:

          I do agree that Cayman has not moved into the 21st Century when it comes to legislation. Do not hold your breath about bringing Cayman into line with other jurisdictions. Too many vested interests particularly those held by Brutus and other lawyers.