Cayman Islands: Cayman Grand Court Permits U.S. Depositions of Future Trial Witnesses

Last Updated: 16 August 2010
Article by Marit Hudson

In the course of international litigation a party seeks to depose a future witness of fact using powers available to that litigant under the laws of another jurisdiction or under powers of the domestic court. What approach does a Court take to such steps?

Four recent judgments in the Cayman Islands have considered these issues from the perspective of Cayman law. The judgments confirmed that in appropriate circumstances domestic and foreign depositions will be permitted to assist trial preparation, but confirmed that depositions will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Depositions Under Foreign Systems – s.1782 Depositions

In the United States, Title 28 of U.S. Code s.1782 allows a litigant in non-U.S. proceedings to apply for permission to obtain evidence for use in such proceedings. The litigant must establish that it is an "interested person" in a foreign proceeding, including documentary discovery and the taking of depositions.

Most common law jurisdictions have been hostile to permitting depositions of future witnesses, even in circumstances where the law of the jurisdiction in which the witness was resident permits such depositions. An established body of case law has consistently indicated that anti-suit proceedings would be readily granted to restrain s.1782 depositions of intended witnesses largely on the basis that such depositions would constitute unwarranted double cross-examination, including decisions in England (Omega Group Holdings v. Kozeny [2002] C.L.C. 132), Australia (Allstate Life Insurance v ANZ Banking Group [1996] FCA 1270) and Jersey (United Capital Corporation v Bender [2006] JLR 269 (CA)).

However in Phoenix Meridian Equity Limited v. Lyxor Asset Management S.A ("Phoenix") [2009 CILR 553] the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal confirmed, after an expedited hearing and a special sitting of the Court, the Grand Court's refusal of an anti-suit sought by the Defendant to restrain s.1782 depositions of future witnesses. This decision was reached in part by applying the principles in the leading existing cases to the facts of the case and in part by taking into account specific issues of Cayman civil procedure.

Phoenix was a funds dispute which centred on the Defendant's alleged basis for the calculation of the NAV in respect of a principal protected investment product offered by Societe Générale. The parties' valuation of the redemption value of the product differed by some US$100m,

The Plaintiff sought s.1782 depositions in New York of two officers of a U.S. company affiliated to the Defendant. The Defendant had served an Amended Defence which the Plaintiff claimed contained a dramatic change in its case. It was the Plaintiff's case that there was a significant free-standing litigation benefit in the proposed oral examination to assist its trial preparation and that the proposed depositions would save time and costs.

The Defendant applied to restrain the depositions on the basis that those officers had provided witness statements in the Cayman action and would be giving oral evidence at the trial of the action. The Defendant argued that the depositions would subject the deponees to unwarranted double cross-examination, that the Cayman trial would suffer from unwarranted duplication and distraction, and that the topics covered by the s. 1782 notice were too broad and intrusive.

At first instance, applying the standard common law approach, the Grand Court ([2009 CILR 342] Smellie CJ) recognised that when a party has a right to avail itself of a legitimate foreign process, such as s.1782 proceedings, there must be very compelling reasons for preventing it from doing so (applying the leading English cases of South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij "De Zeven Provincien" NV [1987] AC 24, HL and Nokia Corporation v Interdigital Technology Corporation [2004] EWHC 2920, (Pumfrey J). The Chief Justice noted that there was no reported Cayman case involving the application of anti-suit principles other than in forum non conveniens disputes.

The Chief Justice considered in detail the arguments in favour of the proposed depositions. The Plaintiff was able to identify several reasons why the depositions would constitute discovery in the true sense of the word and why the process could not be dismissed as mere double cross-examination. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was able to identify time and cost saving benefits of using the s.1782 process over solely domestic Cayman methods of evidence gathering. The Court noted that the U.S. courts are live to concerns such as vexatiousness and oppression and have the power to control the s.1782 deposition process (Intel Corp v Advanced Micro Devices Inc 542 USC 241 (2004)).

The Court also considered important the differences between Cayman civil procedure and the procedures of most other common law jurisdictions. First, GCR Order 24 Rule 16 permits a party to litigation to make an application to the Grand Court for discovery by oral examination of a party or an officer of a corporate party. Therefore, depositions are permitted under Cayman law, including those of a potential trial witness. Second, Cayman law provides oral discovery through the right to seek pre-trial cross-examination of individuals who have responded to interrogatories under GCR Order 26 Rule 5(2). These provisions indicated that Cayman law should not consider the risk of double-cross-examination of a future trial witness as a per se abuse of process.

On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed the first instance decision, although the Court did order that the transcripts of the depositions could not be used at trial without the leave of the Court. The Justices of Appeal reiterated that the more appropriate venue for specific arguments of oppression was the U.S. and that the special regime for the taking of depositions under Cayman law was relevant to the exercise of discretion when considering allegations of oppression.

The Phoenix decision is of considerable practical importance, particularly given the regular involvement of entities resident in the U.S. in Cayman litigation. It allows and encourages practical co-operation between courts in the U.S. and the Grand Court, particularly in cases where a litigant is providing limited information in respect of an important aspect of the case.

In passing, it is worth noting the prominence given to Canadian jurisprudence both at first instance and on appeal. GCR O.24, Rule 16 is loosely based on analogous Canadian processes, and a Canadian decision on depositions of future witnesses, Sternson Ltd v. CC Chemicals Ltd (1981) 124 DLR (3d) 78, was relied upon by both courts in support of the refusal of the injunction. There have been several recent Cayman decisions where Canadian judgments have been influential, for example in Miller v. Gianne [2007 CILR 18] the Grand Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Pro Swing Inc v. Elta Golf Inc [2006] SCR 612 in the context of the Cayman approach to enforcement of foreign judgments.

GCR O.24, r.16 – Domestic Depositions and the Unloved Orphan

The Phoenix litigation also provided two judgments which indicated the restrictive approach which would be taken under Cayman law for domestic deposition applications under O.24, Rule 16.

Although O.24, Rule 16 was introduced into the Grand Court Rules in 2003, there are no reported cases in which the Grand Court had ordered a deposition under the Rule. When considering an interim injunction pending the appeal, Quin J. stated that he considered the rule "foreign to all our well-established and well recognised rules governing discovery" and that it could be described "as an unwanted and unloved orphan that has received little or no use since its introduction"([2009 CILR 353], Quin J).

This critical approach to O.24, r.16 was subsequently approved in another ruling in Phoenix by Foster J. on a separate application by the Defendant in which it sought a deposition under O.24, Rule 16 of the Plaintiff's main witness [2009 CILR Note 18]. Foster J. held that O.24, Rule 16 was a very exceptional procedure and that it should be used only in exceptional and unusual circumstances. He further held that other discovery processes could have been used to obtain the information which the Defendant stated it wanted to obtain by deposition. The Defendant's summons was dismissed.

The English and Australian authorities were relied upon by Foster J. to reject the application. The application was heard some 7 weeks before the listing of a 4 week trial. His Lordship considered this too late and too much of an interference with trial preparation citing Allstate and Benfield Holding v. Richardson [2007] EWHC 171.

The practical effect of these two judgments is that it should be considered very rare for parties to Cayman litigation to be subject to deposition process under domestic civil procedure. O.24, Rule 16 should only be considered in circumstances where oral discovery can be shown to be necessary for the fair trial of the action and where other discovery processes such as documentary discovery or interrogatories are inadequate. Furthermore, any such application ought to be precisely limited in scope and made sufficiently in advance of any trial so as to avoid any allegation of distraction from trial preparation.


The Phoenix litigation has provided valuable guidance on the availability of depositions in aid of Cayman litigation. The practical effect is that it may be easier to obtain depositions of witnesses resident in foreign jurisdictions using the procedures of those jurisdictions than under Cayman law provided it can be shown that the taking of such foreign depositions will not constitute oppressive or abusive conduct in the context of the trial of the Cayman action. While this result may seem odd as a matter of initial impression, it is an indirect effect of the role of comity in international litigation. As the decision of the House of Lords in the South Carolina acknowledged, foreign legal systems may offer litigants opportunities to obtain evidence by means which are not available in the domestic legal system, but absent oppression such the domestic court will not step in to prevent the foreign process.

The judgments also indicate the importance of considering specific principles of Cayman law, particularly Cayman civil procedure, when applying principles derived from judgments in other common law jurisdictions.

A party seeking assistance under s.1782 to seek depositions of future witnesses in aid of Cayman litigation will still have to be ready to face the challenge of an anti-suit injunction in Cayman. The judgments in Phoenix indicated that the Court considered carefully the reasons given for the depositions in the specific context of the procedural history of the litigation. In other circumstances the Grand Court may be persuaded to intervene in order to protect the integrity of the domestic trial process.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions