In a decision that does much to reassert legal certainty for investors in Cayman Islands funds the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal ("CICA") has overruled a decision of the Grand Court concerning the circumstances in which an official liquidator of a solvent company could rectify the register of members, in 'In the matter of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation)'.
The Grand Court had held that section 112(2) of the Companies Act empowered an official liquidator to go behind a contractually binding (but misstated) NAV and substitute a correct NAV in its place. The CICA disagreed and, while noting the potential for harsh and indeed arguably unfair outcomes for some investors where a binding (but misstated) NAV was upheld, preferred to uphold the principle of legal certainty for all investors, and followed the recent line of authority from the Privy Council decisions in Fairfield Sentry and Pearson v Primeo.
In a recent decision, the Irish High Court held that a court may order a person to make discovery of personal information that he or she has a right to obtain from a third party on foot of a data access request made pursuant to data protection laws. This judgment is particularly significant for individual litigants, especially where those parties are commencing discovery.
In preparing for a trial, parties are required to seek out and disclose on affidavit certain categories of documents to one another. In that process, known as "discovery", parties are required to list - but are permitted to refuse to provide copies of - certain classes of documents. The relevant classes are based on long-established legal principles that justify a refusal, and each class is termed a "privilege".
Chambers and Partners has released its 2018 Global guide to the world's leading law firms and Maples and Calder has secured top spots for nine practice groups across six locations. The firm continues to achieve high rankings in both the individual lawyer and practice group categories, with 65 individual lawyer rankings in this edition.
The Supreme Court recently unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision on the six year limitation period for claims in negligence for property damage. The case represents an important development of the applicable principles in this frequently contested area of construction disputes.