ARTICLE
14 October 2025

Donghai Investment Holding Ltd v Crystal Fount Investments Ltd [2025] CIGC (FSD) 97

CC
Collas Crill

Contributor

Collas Crill is an offshore law firm with offices in BVI, Cayman, Guernsey, Jersey and London.

We deliver a comprehensive range of legal services to clients locally and globally in four broad practice areas: Financial Services and Regulatory; Insolvency and Corporate Disputes; Private Client and Trusts; and Real Estate.

Clients include some of the world’s leading financial institutions, international businesses, trusts and funds, as well as high-net-worth individuals and families across the globe. We continue to build a network of independent and trusted partners around the world including the Caribbean, the Channel Islands, the UK, Europe, the US, the Middle East, South Africa and Asia.

When considering an application to serve out of the jurisdiction, if a contractual agreement exists with respect to jurisdiction, the court will not re-weigh factors which were foreseeable in assessing whether the Cayman Islands is the most appropriate jurisdiction, absent exceptional, unforeseen circumstances.
Jersey Finance and Banking
Collas Crill are most popular:
  • within Wealth Management and Technology topic(s)

Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
Subject: Service out of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, presumption parties have already considered forum issues if relevant contract contains jurisdiction clause
Judges: Asif J

Summary

When considering an application to serve out of the jurisdiction, if a contractual agreement exists with respect to jurisdiction, the court will not re-weigh factors which were foreseeable in assessing whether the Cayman Islands is the most appropriate jurisdiction, absent exceptional, unforeseen circumstances.

Further details

The Plaintiff sought leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction on the Defendant, in the British Virgin Islands. In determining whether to grant leave to serve out of the jurisdiction the Court must consider whether:

  1. there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the case;
  2. there is a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the gateways in Order 11 of the Grand Court Rules; and
  3. the Cayman Islands is the most appropriate forum to hear the case.

Limbs (i) and (ii) were satisfied. As to (iii), Asif J adopted the principles stated by Gloster J inAntec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc [2006] EWHC 47 (Comm), as applied by Doyle J in Seahawk China Dynamic Fund v Gold Dragon Worldwide Asset Management Ltd (unreported, 2 February 2024). Thus Asif J reaffirmed the position that, if parties have agreed either an exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, they are taken to have considered all relevant factors of convenience at the time of contracting. Accordingly, there must be overwhelming or very strong reasons to depart from the contractual choice, and convenience factors that were foreseeable at the time the contract was made (such as location of witnesses or documents) do not suffice.

Finding no exceptional or unforeseen circumstances pointing to another jurisdiction, and noting the strong connecting factor of a Cayman choice of law clause, Asif J held that the Cayman Islands was the appropriate forum.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More