Mobile Menu

Natural Justice in the Context of Interim Applications

It is quite common for a party considering bringing an interim injunction application to weigh, among other things, the risk, by bringing the application, of having to disclose information to the court and the respondent that they would rather not disclose (in particular sensitive commercial information). The extent of that disclosure is often broadened by the duty of full and frank disclosure which such an applicant bears.

In the very recent decision of Olalekan Akinsoga Akinyanmi v Lekoil Limited Cause No. FSD 382 of 2021 (IKJ), the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands had to consider whether or not an applicant for an ex parte injunction was required to disclose to the respondent information that the applicant had previously provided to the Judge (for the purpose of obtaining and/or continuing the injunction). The issue arose as a result of a confidentiality application that the applicant had made after obtaining the ex parte injunction. The applicant claimed that the information in question was commercially sensitive.

In dismissing the applicant’s application, and ordering it to disclose the relevant information to the respondent (failing which the injunction would be discharged), the Cayman Court held that it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a party to proceedings is entitled to see all of the information put before the Judge and taken into account. It would therefore be contrary to that principle for “an ex parte injunction to be made or continued…on the basis of material relevant to the granting of the Order which was kept confidential from the [respondent].”


To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Natural Justice in the Context of Interim Applications


Matthew Brown

British Virgin Islands   +1 284 852 1121

Erik Bodden

Cayman Islands   +1 345 814 7754


"I enjoy working with them - they are very dependable, reliable and responsive."
- Chambers Global