1. Foreign proceedings (actual or prospective);
2. Which give rise to a judgment enforceable in the Cayman Islands

• There must be ‘solid evidence’ of a real risk of the judgment remaining unsatisfied unless the respondent is prevented from dealing with assets within the jurisdiction (i.e. within the Cayman Islands).
• ‘Solid evidence’ was judged on a case-by-case basis.
• It was possible in principle to infer a risk of dissipation. The risk would more readily be inferred where the respondent was a holding company without any substantial physical presence or operations within the jurisdiction.
• If there was a good arguable case of fraudulent or dishonest behaviour by the respondent, then there is authority to support the Court assuming the risk of dissipation
• The timing of the application for a WFO is relevant only to the question of whether there was a real risk of dissipation. Delay may suggest that the applicant did not consider there to be a real risk.
• The availability of injunctive relief from another jurisdiction; and
• The enforceability of the WFO if granted by the Cayman Court, in circumstances where the respondent, with only ‘tenuous’ links to the jurisdiction, might flout the order
• If relief is within the power of the foreign court and may be or has been obtained, then any injunctive relief in the Cayman Islands is likely to be limited in scope to assets within the Islands;
• If the relief is within the power of the foreign court but has been refused by the foreign court, that will be a factor to be taken into account, but it does not necessarily mean that the Cayman Court will decline to grant the WFO; and
• If relief is not available in other jurisdictions, then that is a factor that weighs in favour of granting the relief in the Cayman Islands.

ALISTAIR J. WALTERS

HAMID KHANBHAI