Bass v Bass

JurisdictionCayman Islands
Judge(Sanderson, J.)
Judgment Date13 September 2001
CourtGrand Court (Cayman Islands)
Date13 September 2001
Grand Court

(Sanderson, J.)

BASS
and
BASS

S.A. Roy for the plaintiff;

P.S. Boni for the defendant.

Cases cited:

(1) Grupo Torras S.A. v. MeesPierson (Bahamas) Ltd.UNK[1998] 2 O.F.L.R. 163; on appeal [1999] 2 ITELR 29; [2000] 1 LRC 627, followed.

(2) Mercedes Benz A.G. v. Leiduck, [1996] A.C. 284; [1995] 3 All E.R. 929, followed.

(3) Solvalub Ltd. v. Match Inv. Ltd., 1996 JLR 361; [1997] 1 O.F.L.R. 152, not followed.

(4) Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., The Spiliada, [1987] A.C. 460; [1986] 3 All E.R. 843; [1987] 1 Lloyd”s Rep. 1.

Injunctions-Mareva injunction-court”s discretion to grant injunction-no injunction over Cayman assets in aid of foreign proceedings without Cayman cause of action, e.g. enforcement of foreign judgment, unless foreign court unable to grant injunctive relief and assets in danger of dissipation-injunction undesirable if foreign Mareva already in force over Cayman assets

The petitioner in US divorce proceedings applied to the Grand Court for a Mareva injunction in respect of her husband”s Cayman assets.

The plaintiff obtained, ex parte, a Mareva injunction in respect of Cayman bank accounts into which her husband, the defendant, had transferred large sums in US dollars, allegedly to defeat a judgment in her favour by the Texas courts in proceedings ancillary to divorce. The injunction was granted by the Grand Court on the ground that the judgment of the Texas court was enforceable here. When the appellate court in Texas reversed the judgment of the lower court, the Grand Court set aside the injunction. The plaintiff then commenced the present proceedings, seeking the same relief on the basis that the funds in the Cayman accounts were ‘community property’ within the meaning of the relevant Texas legislation and accordingly the defendant held them on trust for her. The court granted an ex parte Mareva injunction and adjourned the proceedings.

At an inter partes hearing, the plaintiff applied for the continuation of the Mareva injunction pending a trial of the issues. The defendant opposed the application on the ground that since no other substantive relief was sought in the present proceedings, the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction. The court was informed that the Texas court had, the day before the hearing, granted a worldwide Mareva injunction, including the Cayman assets.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The plaintiff was not entitled to a Mareva injunction merely to assist her in proceedings in Texas, since the Grand Court had no power to grant such an injunction in the absence of a cause of action here. If that power did exist, it was to be exercised only where the foreign court could not grant an injunction in respect of assets here and they would remain susceptible to dissipation. The issue of whether the Cayman assets

constituted ‘community property’ could only be determined at trial in Texas. Once the plaintiff had obtained judgment there, she would be in a position to seek to enforce it here. Whilst the earlier injunction had been granted on the basis of judicial comity and the recognition of a foreign...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Free-Standing Freezing Orders: Now Available In The Cayman Islands?
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 26 August 2011
    ...Grand Court will show as much enthusiasm for such free-standing freezing orders. Footnotes 1 Gillies-Smith v Smith (Cause 173 of 2011) 2 2001 CILR 317 3 Cause No 845 of 1997 4 2002 CILR note 22 5 [1996] 1 AC 284 6 It is long established that a worldwide freezing order obtained in England ma......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT