All posts by hsmoffice
Our HSM IP team has landed in London and is gearing up to attend the International Trade Mark Association’s (INTA) Annual General Meeting from 2-6 May 2026.
Meet Huw St.J. Moses OBE (Managing Partner), Mrinali Menon (Senior IP Manager), Shirly Ramirez (IP Fees & Agent Relations Coordinator) and Mya Taylor (Marketing Officer).
You can visit the team at Booth #1111 or if you would like to arrange a meeting, email us at ip@hsmoffice.com.
We look forward to seeing you there!
HSM IP has been named Caribbean Firm of the Year at the Managing IP Awards 2026 Americas.
This marks two years in a row that our firm has achieved this prestigious recognition, reflecting the strength of our intellectual property practice and the outstanding work delivered by our IP team across the Caribbean over the past year.
We are immensely proud of this achievement, which is the result of the team’s dedication, technical excellence, and commitment to delivering strategic, high‑quality advice to our clients. We are deeply grateful to our clients for their continued trust and support.
The Managing IP Awards programme recognises remarkable IP achievements and developments across key practice areas and jurisdictions worldwide. Now in its 21st year, the awards highlight firms demonstrating excellence, innovation, and leadership in intellectual property.
Thank you to Managing IP for this honour, and congratulations to all other outstanding award recipients.
In a press release dated 15 April 2026, the Ministry of Caymanian Employment and Immigration announced:
”The Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2025 introduces updated rules for work permit holders changing jobs, effective 1 May 2026.
Work permit holders can still change jobs. However:
• First-time work permit holders granted a permit on or after 1 May 2026 must remain with their sponsoring employer for at least 2 years
• If a worker leaves before completing this period without a valid reason, they will be required to leave the Cayman Islands for 1 year before applying for another permit
The Director of WORC may allow a job change in prescribed circumstances, including:
• Unpaid or uncompensated overtime
• Discrimination or retaliation
• Harassment, including sexual harassment or bullying
• Any other situation the Director of WORC deems justifies an exemption
Domestic Helpers: A special exception applies—workers may be able to change employers within the same role without leaving the Islands”.
While the above does provide insight into the operation of the “new” Section 64, it does pose more questions than answers it provides.
“First-Time Work Permit Holders”: A Concept Not Found in the Act
The press release states that:
“First-time work permit holders granted a permit on or after 1 May 2026 must remain with their sponsoring employer for at least 2 years.”
This formulation introduces a concept — “first-time work permit holders” — which does not appear anywhere in the new Section 64. The statutory language is notably broader. Subsection (1) applies to:
“A person who is the holder of a work permit…”
There is no distinction drawn between:
- first-time permit holders;
- repeat permit holders; or
- individuals already present and working in the Cayman Islands.
Equally, the press release states that the new Section 64 applies only to permits granted post 1 May 2026. If this is correct, what does that mean for existing work permit holders?
The Position of Existing Work Permit Holders
The starting point in the legislation is clear:
- Section 64 has been repealed and replaced in its entirety; and
- The new Section 64 contains no express limitation to future permits.
It does not preserve the former Section 64, nor does it disapply the new Section 64.
Accordingly, on a strict reading of the statute:
- existing work permit holders remain “persons who are the holder of a work permit”; and
- if they cease employment within two years of the grant of their permit after 1 May 2026, they would appear to fall within subsection (3), triggering the one-year departure requirement (absent an exemption).
This degree of freedom which the press release would seemingly point to, does not appear to align with the intention of the Act.
This disconnect creates legal uncertainty for both employers and employees, who may reasonably rely on the Government’s public guidance, but whose rights and obligations are ultimately determined by the legislation itself.
“Prescribed Circumstances” Without Regulations
The press release also attempts to give content to the “prescribed circumstances” under subsection (5), listing examples such as unpaid overtime, discrimination, and harassment.
While these examples are helpful from a policy perspective, they are not — at present — legally operative. It is suspected that new Regulations will be published but as of today’s date, no such Regulations exist.
The statute is explicit: exemptions depend on “prescribed circumstances”, which must be set out in regulations. In the absence of such regulations:
- there are no formally prescribed circumstances; and
- the exemption mechanism under subsections (4)–(5) remains incomplete.
- an employee who has been released from their work permit.
- An employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed.
- An employee who has been made redundant.
Conclusion: A Need for Clarification
The press release provides a useful indication of policy intent, but it does not resolve the underlying statutory ambiguities. In particular:
- the concept of “first-time work permit holders” has no clear legislative basis;
- the position of existing work permit holders remains uncertain; and
- the exemption regime cannot function fully in the absence of regulations.
Given the significant consequences of Section 64 — including mandatory departure from the Islands — it is essential that these issues are clarified, either through regulations, formal guidance, or further legislative amendment.
Until then, there remains a real risk that the law, as enacted, may operate more broadly and more rigidly than the Government’s public statements suggest.
HSM IP is pleased to have contributed once again to the International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) to Trade Marks. Click here to read our Cayman Islands chapter in the 15th edition of the guide, authored by Huw Moses, Mrinali Menon and Kate Cleary.
Produced by Global Legal Group, the ICLG to Trade Marks provides practical, cross-border insight into trade mark law and practice. Now in its 15th edition, the guide addresses key legal and regulatory issues across more than 30 jurisdictions worldwide.
It is with deep sadness that we mark the passing of our much‑loved colleague and friend, Oscar DaCosta, who died this weekend past following a courageous battle with brain cancer.
Oscar obtained an LLB (Hons) Degree from the University of Liverpool (Truman Bodden Law School) in 2014 and also received a Commendation in the Professional Practice Course in 2017. Oscar was also an Accredited Civil and Commercial Mediator by the ADR Group – Civil Mediation Council (CMC) in London. Oscar joined HSM Chambers in March 2020 and we were proud to subsequently move his admission as a Cayman Attorney specializing in Property related matters and he later also served the firm with distinction as its Compliance Officer. Throughout his time with us, he exemplified professionalism, integrity, and quiet determination. He approached his work with care and precision, but it was his kindness, humility, and unfailing courtesy that left the most lasting impression on those around him. Oscar was a trusted adviser to clients and colleagues alike. He brought clarity to complex matters, calm to challenging situations, and an unwavering sense of responsibility to everything he undertook. His contribution to HSM Chambers extended well beyond his technical expertise.
Beyond his professional life, Oscar’s compassion and commitment to helping others shone brightly. Together with his wife, Melissa, he co‑founded The Grey Area, a Cayman‑registered charity dedicated to supporting and raising awareness around brain health and brain cancer. In the face of profound personal adversity, Oscar chose to create something hopeful and purposeful—an enduring legacy that will continue to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others. Oscar faced his illness with remarkable courage and dignity. Even during the most difficult periods, he remained thoughtful of others and deeply grateful for the support and kindness shown to him. His strength, grace, and generosity of spirit were an inspiration to all who knew him.
On behalf of everyone at HSM Chambers, I extend our heartfelt condolences to Melissa, his family, and the many friends whose lives he touched. He will be remembered not only as a dedicated lawyer and compliance professional, but as a genuinely decent and compassionate man. Oscar’s legacy lives on—in his work, in The Grey Area, and in the many people who were fortunate enough to know him. He will be greatly missed but never forgotten.
Huw St.J. Moses OBE
Managing Partner, HSM Chambers
Oscar DaCosta
On 19 March 2026, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered its judgment in A and Ors (Appellants) v C and others (Respondents) [2026] UKPC 11, overturning the Bermuda Court of Appeal and holding that the protectors of the X Trusts had the “wider” role, rather than a narrow supervisory one.
The decision has been closely watched by trust practitioners globally as it resolves a long-running uncertainty, namely, where a trust instrument requires protector consent as a condition to exercise a trustee power but the trust instrument is silent on how such consent is to be exercised, is the protector (a) confined to reviewing the rationality and legality of the trustees’ proposed decision, or (b) may the protector exercise an independent judgment on the merits?
The Privy Council has now made clear that, absent express language imposing narrower constraints in the trust instrument, the protector is not limited to acting as a mere watchdog. A protector may instead have a substantive fiduciary role to play and may withhold consent based on its own independent assessment of the merits of any trustee proposal.
Key takeaways
The decision suggests that where a trust instrument does not expressly limit the protector’s role, a fiduciary protector’s consent power will usually (subject to the terms of the trust instrument) be interpreted as a wider one. The court will not rush in to fill drafting silence with an implied narrow duty.
For existing trusts, trustee and protector provisions should be reviewed carefully. For new trusts, drafting should expressly state whether the protector is intended to have a narrow supervisory role or a wider fiduciary one.
Action points
For trustees
- Review the protector consent provisions in existing trust instruments to try to identify whether such powers are of a ‘narrow’ or ‘wide’ variety.
- If the protector powers in the trust instruments are silent or unclear, consider implementing clarifying amendments where possible.
- If the protector powers are silent or unclear, assume they are of the ‘wide’ variety.
- Keep a clear record of all protector interactions.
For protectors
- Ascertain whether the protector powers are of the ‘narrow’ or ‘wide’ variety and carry out your duties accordingly.
- If the powers are silent or unclear, consider implementing clarifying amendments to the trust instrument wherever possible in concert with the trustee.
- If the powers are silent or unclear assume they are of the ‘wide’ variety.
- Keep a clear record of trustee interactions.
For settlors
- Ensure the powers vested in protectors clearly indicate whether they are of the ‘wide’ or ‘narrow’ variety.
- Ensure there are deadlock-provisions in the trust instrument in the event a protector and a trustee cannot find common ground on any proposed course of action.
- Ensure any proposed protector fully understands the nature of their role, the expected duties, as well as their fiduciary responsibilities if their powers vested in them are of the ‘wide’ variety.
The facts and procedural history
In 2017, the trustees of the X Trusts developed proposals concerning the future of the trusts. Certain aspects of these proposals necessitated protector consent. After consultation, the protectors took the view that the proposals were unlikely to serve the beneficiaries’ best interests, and withheld consent. They approached the matter on the basis that their duty was of the wider variety and not a mere ‘rubber stamp’.
In June 2020, the Bermuda-based trustees applied to the Supreme Court of Bermuda for the court’s blessing of their preliminary proposals under the Public Trustee v Cooper route. One branch of beneficiaries and the protectors opposed the application, arguing that if protector consent was unlikely, further expense would be unjustified.
The trustees then sought declarations from the Supreme Court of Bermuda as to the basis on which the protectors could withhold consent, and specifically whether the protectors’ function was narrow or wider. One beneficiary branch argued for the narrow role and another for the wider role; the trustees and protectors remained neutral. On 22 November 2021, the Supreme Court of Bermuda held that the protectors had only a narrow role. That conclusion was upheld by the Bermuda Court of Appeal in February 2023.
In doing so, the Court of Appeal declined to follow the Jersey Royal Court’s reasoning in In the matter of Piedmont Trust & Riviera Trust [2021] JRC 248, where materially similar trust wording had been interpreted as conferring a wider role on the protector.
The Privy Council’s reasoning
The Privy Council rejected the framing of the issue as a simple binary choice between two default models. Instead, it held that the correct question was what constraints, if any, the trust instrument actually imposed on the protector, read in context and together with the general law.
That approach mattered. The trust deeds conferred clearly defined powers on the protectors, but were silent as to how those powers should be exercised. The Privy Council held that this silence did not justify implying a narrow restriction. On the contrary, where a settlor has deliberately created fiduciary offices and specified powers without prescribing a detailed decision-making standard, that gap may well be intentional.
Relying on principles approved in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd. [2009] UKPC 10, the Privy Council held that if the settlor had intended something further to happen, the instrument would ordinarily have said so. An apparent gap may therefore be a deliberate gap, reflecting a choice to trust the good sense of fiduciaries rather than constrain them with detailed rules.
The Privy Council found nothing in the X Trusts’ deeds that supported the narrow role. By contrast, several features supported the wider role.
First, the deeds permitted the protector powers to be released or waived. That was difficult to reconcile with the suggestion that the protectors were simply there to police legality. As the Privy Council noted, it would be unusual to permit a “watchdog” to abdicate that function permanently.
Secondly, where there was more than one protector, unanimous consent was required; failing unanimity, the trustees could proceed without protector consent so long as they consulted the protectors and took their views into account. The Privy Council considered that structure consistent with protectors having an independent evaluative role. It made little sense if a protector’s task were merely to identify unlawfulness.
Thirdly, consent was required only for a limited category of especially important acts, including appointments of capital and dealings with specified securities. That selective allocation of consent rights strongly suggested that the settlor intended the protectors to exercise real judgment in relation to major decisions.
The Privy Council also emphasised that fiduciary status does not itself narrow the protector’s function. A fiduciary protector must avoid conflicts and exercise powers for proper purposes, but those duties are entirely consistent with a wider role.
Deadlock and practical significance
The Bermuda Court of Appeal had been concerned that a wider role risked duplication and deadlock. The Privy Council rejected that as a reason to prefer the narrow interpretation. The very purpose of a protector with meaningful consent rights may be to stop a major transaction that the protector considers inappropriate. The possibility of deadlock was therefore contemplated.
If you are a concerned trustee, protector or settlor, please reach out to Robert Mack or Hilary Brooks who would be pleased to guide you.
On Friday, 27 March 2026, the Government announced that the “Immigration Law changes will take effect on Friday, 1 May 2026”. It appears that the Act which was passed in December 2025 and amended, prior to coming into force on 25 March 2026, will be the Law of the Cayman Islands as of 1 May 2026. It appears that all the amended sections will come into force on 1 May 2026. This means that it is likely that a further set of Regulations will have to be published between now and 1 May 2026. These Regulations are needed to prescribe in what circumstances a work permit holder can change employer during the first two years of Employment. The new Section 64 of the Act which comes into force on 1 May 2026 sets out that only those work permit holders who satisfy the prescribed circumstances will be able to change employers during the first two years of employment. In the absence of prescribed circumstances, a work permit holder who leaves their employment during the first two years of employment will have to leave the Cayman Islands for a year if they wish to obtain a new work permit.
The absence of Regulations, means that as of 1 May 2026, work permit holders may be subject to the full effect of Section 64 and the mandatory departure requirement, while being unable in any meaningful way to access the exemption regime intended to mitigate its harshness. In effect, subsection (4)–(5) risks being rendered temporarily inoperable, as these were the subsections which provided the exemption from the requirement to leave the Cayman Islands and which the prescription would relate. This raises not only issues of fairness and proportionality, but also legal uncertainty for both employees and employers, who are left without clear guidance as to how applications will be assessed in the interim. Unless and until the relevant regulations are introduced, the new Section 64 may operate in a manner that is more rigid than the legislature may have intended.
Despite the need for Regulations in regard to Section 64, it is not clear why these Regulations are yet to be published. The Government have published new Regulations in respect to Fees in 2026, but not substantive Regulations in regards to this section 64. Why this is, is not clear but it is hoped that Regulations will be published. Since the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2025 was passed last year, the issue of Section 64 and the uncertainty surrounding it, has been the area in which the most advice has been provided to clients. The fact we are now a month a way from this law coming into force and are none the wiser is neither fair nor appropriate to employees or employers.
The Cayman Islands Government has confirmed that the jurisdiction will maintain its “legitimate interest” framework for access to beneficial ownership information, resisting external pressure for a fully public register. The Premier has publicly stated that a “Google-style” open-access register would likely be unconstitutional under Cayman law and has repeatedly referenced the ruling of the European Court of Justice which invalidated Luxembourg’s public register regime on privacy grounds. Instead, Cayman has adopted a “legitimate interest” test, permitting access to beneficial ownership data where a demonstrable public interest outweighs privacy concerns.
Amendments to the Beneficial Ownership Transparency Act were enacted in November 2025, with further changes approved by Parliament on 10 March 2026 through the Beneficial Ownership Transparency (Legitimate Interest Access) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These introduced a KY$250 (US$300) annual fee for qualifying users conducting multiple searches and increased the cost of a single search to KY$75 (US$90).
The Cayman Islands beneficial ownership regime already exceeds current Financial Action Task Force standards, and the Cayman Islands Government continues to enhance all areas of compliance ahead of Cayman’s fifth-round mutual evaluation, scheduled for December 2027. The upcoming assessment is expected to focus on enforcement outcomes, including money laundering prosecutions, complaints handling and asset recovery.
Beneficial Owners
The overall objective of the beneficial ownership regime is to ensure transparency of the beneficial ownership of Cayman Islands entities. A Beneficial Owner in relation to a legal person means an individual who either (a) ultimately owns or controls, whether directly or indirectly, 25% or more of the shares, voting rights or partnership interests in a legal person; or (b) otherwise exercises ultimate effective control (through a chain of ownership or other than by direct control) over the management of the legal person; or (c), where there is no individual fitting within (a) or (b), an individual who exercises control of the legal person through other means (for example as a director or a CEO), but does not include an individual acting solely as a professional advisor or professional manager.
If no individual meets any of the criteria with respect to a legal person but the trustees of a trust meet one of the Beneficial Owner criteria, in their capacities as trustees of a trust, those trustees are then the beneficial owners of the legal person if they have ultimate effective control over the trust.
The meaning of ‘legal person’ includes partnerships (excluding foreign partnerships registered in the Cayman Islands) and extends to all companies (excluding foreign companies registered in the Cayman Islands); limited liability companies; foundation companies; limited partnerships; limited liability partnerships and exempted limited partnerships.
Conclusion
As a leader in ongoing anti-money laundering initiatives, the Cayman Islands continues to show its commitment to transparency and exceeding international standards.
HSM can assist with all beneficial ownership matters and provide the necessary advice as to the application of the beneficial ownership regime.
The latest work permit statistics released by Workforce Opportunities & Residency Cayman (WORC) show that there are currently 37,075 work permits in place as of 11 March 2026.
This represents a small decrease from February 2026, when 37,267 work permits were recorded.
While monthly fluctuations are common, the broader trend over the past 18 months is notable. Since September 2024, the total number of work permits has remained remarkably stable at around 37,000. At no point during this period has the total exceeded 38,000, suggesting that the Cayman Islands labour market has reached a relatively steady plateau following the post-pandemic growth period.
One question that naturally arises from the data is whether the Cayman Islands may have quietly reached a ceiling in the size of its expatriate workforce. This may also prompt a deeper question: are there now structural limits, such as housing availability, cost of living pressures, tighter regulatory scrutiny, or businesses not recruiting, that are beginning to cap further growth in the workforce? The numbers alone do not provide the answer, but the plateau is certainly worth watching.
Another notable trend emerging from the data is the increase in Working by Operation of Law (WOL) permits. WOLs are granted if a work permit has been rejected and appealed. Therefore, at the current time it appears that 61 work permits rejections are current under appeal.
The data shows a clear upward trend in the rejection of work permits or the delays in processing appeals or both:
- 1 May 2025 — 17 WOLs in place
- 11 August 2025 — 25 WOLs in place
- 4 November 2025 — 53 WOLs in place
- 11 March 2026 — 61 WOLs in place
This represents more than a threefold increase within less than a year.
While the underlying reasons may vary from case to case, the trend suggests that work permit refusals or complications in the appeal process may be increasing.
Either way, the growing number of WOLs is an important signal worth monitoring, especially if it is the case that Work Permit rejections are increasing.
Clarity on Factor 8 of the PR Points System: IAT Provides Guidance on Dual Nationality
For many years, there has been uncertainty surrounding how points should be awarded under Factor 8 of the Permanent Residence (PR) Points System in the Cayman Islands.
Factor 8 states:
“To maintain a demographic and cultural balance in our community, points will be awarded based on the applicant’s country of origin.”
Despite the significance of this factor in the overall points assessment, there has historically been little guidance or formal policy explaining how the Workforce Opportunities & Residency Cayman (WORC) or the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (IAT) should determine an individual’s “country of origin.” This lack of clarity has been particularly problematic in cases involving applicants with dual nationality.
The Recent IAT Decision
A recent decision by the IAT has provided some much-needed clarity.
In the case before the Tribunal, the Director of WORC assessed a Permanent Residence applicant who held dual British and Irish nationality as being British for the purposes of Factor 8. As a result, the applicant was awarded 5 points, rather than the 10 points that would have been awarded had the applicant been assessed as Irish.
The applicant appealed this decision to the IAT.
After reviewing the matter, the Tribunal determined that the Director’s approach was erroneous and ultimately quashed the decision.
The Tribunal’s Approach
In explaining how Factor 8 should be applied in cases involving dual nationality, the Tribunal indicated that the appropriate approach is to assess the applicant in a way that avoids unnecessary disadvantage. The IAT stated:
“The Appellant holds dual nationality and therefore, the Tribunal has resolved to approach the matter of Factor 8 — to award points based on the least likely to impose detriment to the Appellant.”
In practical terms, this means that where an applicant holds more than one nationality, the nationality that results in the higher score under Factor 8 should be used.
A Welcome Clarification
This decision represents a welcome clarification in an area that has long lacked formal guidance.
While decisions of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal are not strictly binding on WORC, they are nevertheless highly persuasive. As such, it is hoped that WORC will adopt this approach moving forward when assessing PR applications involving dual nationals.
Greater consistency in the application of Factor 8 will not only improve transparency in the PR process but will also help ensure that applicants are not unfairly disadvantaged simply because they hold more than one nationality.
Further clarification still needed
As was pointed out recently, Nepalese employees now make up, potentially, more than 5% of the work permit holder, if you exclude Government workers. This is still the case. Points are awarded for Factor 8 based upon the number of Work Permits held by nationals of a country. It has long been unclear whether or not the Department are considering Government Workers, who are exempt from the Work Permit regime, as holding a Work Permit for the purposes of Factor 8.
If Government workers are included in the consideration of Factor 8, the Nepalese applicants will receive 10 points for Factor 8. If Government Workers are not included then Nepalese individuals will receive 5 points for Factor 8.
Currently, from the statistics provided, we can see that there are at least three Nepalese individuals awaiting a decision on their PR application. This issue has needed to be resolved for a while now, especially as it is expected that more and more Nepalese individuals will be applying for PR in the upcoming years.
Recent immigration developments in the Cayman Islands represent meaningful progress, but they also highlight the need for greater transparency and certainty as further changes are introduced.
Positive Developments: Protection for PR Holders and Applicants
The Government should be applauded for the introduction of the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Bill 2026. In particular, the decision to grandfather those who have already applied for Permanent Residence and are awaiting a decision, as well as those who currently hold Permanent Residence or another form of permanent immigration permission, is both sensible and fair.
At a time of significant legislative reform, this measure provides reassurance to individuals and families who have made long-term commitments to the Cayman Islands. It reflects a recognition that those who have already engaged with the system under the previous framework should not be disadvantaged by subsequent amendments.
Immigration (Transition) (Fees) Regulations 2026
On Friday, 20 February 2026, the Government published proposed new regulations introducing updated immigration fees. If brought into force, these will become the Immigration (Transition) (Fees) Regulations 2026.
While it is understandable that fees may require adjustment, what is less clear is why the Government appears to be taking a piecemeal approach to the publication of Regulations.
Rather than releasing individual regulations incrementally, there is a strong argument that a comprehensive suite of draft regulations should be published together. This would allow stakeholders, including employers, expatriates, and professional advisors, to understand the full scope of the changes and how they interact.
What Further Regulations Are Required?
The Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Act 2025 (“ITAV 2025”), which passed in December 2025, contains a number of substantive legal changes that will require accompanying regulations in order to operate effectively. These include:
- The financial standing required in order to have dependants reside in the Cayman Islands.
- The form of local media (beyond a traditional local newspaper) in which businesses may advertise employment vacancies.
- The circumstances in which an expatriate may change employers during the first two years of a work permit, subject to the approval of the Director of WORC.
Each of these areas has practical implications for both businesses and individuals. However, the most pressing uncertainty surrounds Section 64 of the ITAV 2025.
Section 64: Change of Employer Restrictions
Section 64 regulates the circumstances in which expatriate workers may change employers within the first two years of the grant of a work permit. However, the section appears to depend on prescribed circumstances that are yet to be set out in regulations.
It is unclear how section 64 can come fully into force without the necessary regulations defining those circumstances. It is also unclear whether the prescribed circumstances will be subject to consultation, and if not, why?
The ongoing uncertainty surrounding section 64 is causing considerable concern. Since the beginning of the year, this has been one of the most frequent areas of enquiry from both expatriates and Caymanian businesses.
It is important to remember the potential implications:
- It is expected to become harder for expatriates to change employers within the first two years of a work permit.
- The restriction appears to apply to each new employer during the first two years of any grant of a work permit, not simply the first two years of residence in the Cayman Islands. This means that an expatriate who has lived in the Islands for six years, but who is on a new work permit with a new employer, may be subject to the restriction.
- It is unclear whether the provision will apply to those who hold a Permission to Continue Working.
- There appears to be no transitional provisions. As soon as ITAV 2025 is brought into force, the restriction may apply immediately.
These unanswered questions create uncertainty at a time when stability is needed.
The Need for Transparency and Certainty
With expatriates and Caymanian businesses attempting to digest substantial immigration reforms, clarity is essential. Publishing regulations incrementally risks confusion and unnecessary anxiety.
A more transparent approach would include releasing the full suite of proposed regulations for review at the same time, which would allow for meaningful engagement and informed planning. Immigration policy has far-reaching consequences for families, businesses and the wider economy. Predictability and clarity are therefore critical.
Reform is welcome. But reform must also be accompanied by certainty.
Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function twentythirteen_paging_nav() in /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-content/themes/hsm/author.php:52 Stack trace: #0 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-includes/template-loader.php(86): include() #1 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/clients/d...') #2 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/index.php(17): require('/home/clients/d...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-content/themes/hsm/author.php on line 52