Freezing injunctions in the Cayman Islands
开曼群岛的冻结令
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (“Cayman Court”) can grant a freezing injunction:
- in connection with underlying proceedings brought in the Cayman Islands (whether issued or contemplated); or
- in relation to proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in a foreign court, which are capable of giving rise to a judgment that may be enforced in the Cayman Islands.
Test for a freezing injunction
To obtain a freezing injunction in the Cayman Islands, the applicant must satisfy certain criteria:
- Good arguable case: The applicant must demonstrate a good arguable case against the respondent. This means that the claim must be more than merely speculative. The requirement for a “good arguable case” has been explained as needing to show a serious issue to be tried, a case that would resist a summary judgment application, or one that is more than barely capable of serious argument but not necessarily one with more than a 50% chance of success.
- Risk of dissipation: There must be a real risk that the respondent will dissipate their assets, making it difficult to enforce a future judgment. This risk must be more than theoretical; there should be concrete evidence suggesting that the respondent might take steps to move or hide assets to avoid satisfying a future judgment. Factors indicating a risk of dissipation include the respondent’s history of asset dissipation or fraudulent behavior, financial instability, or evidence of transferring assets to jurisdictions where enforcement would be difficult.
- Just and convenient: The Cayman Court must be convinced that it is just and convenient to grant the injunction. This involves balancing the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction is not granted against the harm to the respondent if it is.
Particularly due to the inherent risk of dissipation, an application for a freezing injunction is typically made ex parte, meaning without notice to the respondent, to prevent the respondent from moving assets before the injunction is granted. When making the application before the Cayman Court, the applicant has a duty of full and frank disclosure (and fair presentation), including any facts that might be unfavourable to their case. The respondent may be able to set aside the freezing order if the applicant breaches this duty of full and frank disclosure.
Form of freezing order
The freezing order operates in personam against a respondent, although it is not necessary to specify particular assets in a freezing order, it is usually sensible, proportionate and more effective to do so where possible. The relevant assets can include anything of value including intangibles, choses in action such as bank accounts and debts together with shares and goodwill in businesses.
The standard and usual form of freezing order is a “maximum sum order” where the threshold amount stated in the order usually reflects the amount of the underlying claim.
The standard form of freezing order includes assets which the respondent has power to deal with as if they were the respondent’s own and this may include assets which are formally owned or controlled by a third party but are dealt with in accordance with the respondent’s instructions.
The Grand Court Rules provide standard forms of freezing order which can be amended as necessary and a comparison as against the standard form is usually provided to the Cayman Court as part of the application for the grant of a freezing order.
Fortifying cross-undertakings in damages
When a freezing injunction is granted, the applicant is usually required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages. This undertaking is a promise to compensate the respondent for any loss suffered as a result of the injunction if it is later found to have been wrongly granted.
To ensure that the applicant can fulfill this undertaking, the Cayman Court may require the applicant to fortify their cross-undertaking. This can involve making a payment into court or providing other forms of security. The purpose is to protect the respondent from potential undue financial harm and to ensure that there are sufficient assets available to meet any compensation order made.
Effect of a freezing injunction
Case law repeatedly emphasises that although it is not the purpose of a freezing order to provide any interest in or security over frozen assets, its specific purpose is to prevent a defendant from rendering any judgment unenforceable.
Although the freezing order takes effect in personam against the respondent, once its existence and terms are notified to third parties, they may be guilty of contempt of court if they knowingly help or permit the breach of the order or they intentionally frustrate the achievement of the purpose of the order whether or not the respondent is in breach.
For example, where banks are notified of the existence of a freezing order, they should not permit payments to be made from the respondent’s frozen accounts unless it is within the terms of, or an exception to, the order.
Applications for the preservation of assets
In addition to freezing injunctions, the Cayman Court can grant other orders to aid asset preservation. These include:
-
Norwich Pharmacal orders: These orders compel third parties to disclose information that can help identify and locate assets.
-
Anton Piller orders: These are search orders that allow the applicant to enter the respondent’s premises to search for and seize evidence.
-
Bankers Trust orders: These orders require banks to disclose information about the respondent’s accounts.
These orders can prove crucial in cases where the respondent’s assets are hidden or difficult to trace. They help ensure that the respondent’s assets are accurately disclosed or discovered so they can be preserved and available to satisfy a future judgment.
Applications for security for costs
Security for costs is another important tool in Cayman Islands litigation. It protects defendants from the risk of being unable to recover their legal costs if they successfully defend the claim.
Under Order 23 of the Grand Court Rules, a defendant can apply for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for the defendant’s costs. This is particularly relevant when the plaintiff is resident outside the jurisdiction or is otherwise unlikely to be able to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so.
The Cayman Court has discretion in deciding whether to grant security for costs and will consider factors such as the plaintiff’s financial position and the merits of the case. If granted, the plaintiff may be required to make a payment into court or provide other forms of security.
出现以下情况时，开曼群岛大法院（“开曼法院”）可下达冻结令：
- 与在开曼群岛提起的基础诉讼相关（无论该诉讼已提起或拟提起）；
- 与已在/拟在外国法院提起的诉讼相关，且该诉讼可以产生可能在开曼群岛执行的判决。
冻结令的审查标准
在开曼群岛申请冻结令，申请人须满足以下标准：
- 具有良好的可争辩的诉讼理由：申请人须证明其针对被申请人的案件具有良好的可争辩的诉讼理由。这意味着，该主张不能仅仅是推测性的。“具有良好的可争辩的诉讼理由”这一要求已被解释为需证明存在有待审理的严肃问题，即该案件能够经受住简易判决申请的审查；或者该案件虽不必具备超过 50% 的胜诉可能，但也不能只是勉强具备值得严肃争辩的条件。
- 资产耗散风险：被申请人有会耗散其资产的真实风险，导致未来判决将难以执行。这种风险不能仅停留在理论层面；应当有确凿证据表明被申请人可能会采取措施转移或隐藏资产，逃避履行未来判决。表明存在资产耗散风险的因素包括：被申请人有耗散资产或欺诈行为的历史记录、财务状况不稳定，或者有证据显示其将资产转移至执行难度较大的司法管辖区。
- 公正合理：开曼法院须确信下达冻结令是公正合理的。这需要权衡不下达冻结令时可能给申请人造成的潜在损害，与下达冻结令时可能给被申请人造成的损害。
特别是鉴于存在资产耗散的固有风险，申请冻结令通常采用单方面申请的方式（即不通知被申请人），防止被申请人在冻结令下达前转移资产。向开曼法院提出申请时，申请人有义务进行全面、坦诚的披露（以及公平陈述），包括任何可能对其案件不利的事实。申请人违反全面、坦诚披露的义务的，被申请人或可申请撤销该冻结令。
冻结令的形式
冻结令是针对被申请人的对人禁令。虽然在冻结令中无需指明特定资产，但在可能的情况下，指明特定资产通常是明智、合理且更有效的做法。相关资产可包括任何有价值物，涵盖无形资产、诉讼标的权利（如银行账户和债务）以及公司股份和商誉。
冻结令的标准和常见形式为“最高金额令”，其中冻结令中所载明的金额上限通常与基础索赔金额相当。
冻结令的标准形式包括被申请人有权以其自身名义处置的资产，其中可能涵盖形式上由第三方拥有或控制，但实际根据被申请人指示进行处置的资产。
《大法院规则》(Grand Court Rules) 提供了冻结令的标准格式，可根据需要进行修改。在申请下达冻结令时，通常会向开曼法院提供与标准格式的对比说明。
强化损害赔偿反担保
在冻结令下达时，申请人通常需提供损害赔偿反担保。该担保是申请人作出的承诺，即若日后认定冻结令被错误下达，申请人将赔偿被申请人因该冻结令而遭受的任何损失。
为确保申请人能够履行此担保，开曼法院可要求申请人强化其损害赔偿反担保。强化方式可能包括向法院缴纳款项，或提供其他形式的担保。此举旨在保护被申请人，避免其遭受潜在的不合理财务损失，并确保有充足资产可用于履行作出的任何赔偿裁定。
冻结令的效力
判例法多次强调，冻结令的目的并非针对被冻结资产设定权益或提供担保，而是专门用于防止被告致使任何判决无法执行。
尽管冻结令作为对人禁令仅对被申请人发生效力，然而，一旦第三方得知其存在和相关条款，若第三方明知故犯地协助或允许违反冻结令，或者故意阻碍冻结令目的达成（无论被申请人是否违反禁令），第三方均可能构成藐视法庭罪。
例如，当银行得知冻结令存在时，除符合冻结令条款规定或属于冻结令规定的例外情形，不得允许从被申请人的被冻结账户中支付款项。
财产保全申请
除冻结令外，开曼法院还可下达其他命令，协助财产保全，具体包括：
- 第三方披露令 (Norwich Pharmacal Order)：此类命令强制第三方披露有助于对资产进行识别和定位的信息。
- 容许查察令 (Anton Piller Order)：此类命令为搜查令，允许申请人进入被申请人场所进行搜查，并取得证据。
- 银行信托令 (Bankers Trust Order)：此类命令要求银行披露与被申请人账户相关的信息。
在被申请人资产被隐藏或难以追踪的情况下，这些命令至关重要。它们有助于确保被申请人的资产被准确披露或发现，以便进行保全，从而可用于履行未来的判决。
费用担保申请
费用担保是开曼群岛诉讼程序中的另一重要工具，用于保护被告，避免其在成功抗辩诉请后面临无法收回法律费用的风险。
根据《大法院规则》第 23 号令规定，被告可申请命令，要求原告为被告的费用提供担保。特别是当原告居住在司法管辖区之外，或因其他原因不太可能支付被告费用时，此类申请尤为必要。
开曼法院在决定是否批准费用担保方面享有自由裁量权，会综合考虑原告的财务状况、案件实体问题等因素。申请获得批准的，原告可能需向法院缴纳款项，或提供其他形式的担保。
