All posts by hsmoffice

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention“), the Cayman Islands has adopted a robust framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards, encapsulated in the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Act (1997 Revision) (the “Act”). This article provides an overview of the key principles surrounding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Cayman Islands under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Statutory Framework
The Act applies to any award made in a country that is a party to the New York Convention, which encompasses the majority of the world’s trading nations.

Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:

‘A Convention award shall, subject to this Law, be enforceable in the Grand Court in the same manner as an award under section 22 of the Arbitration Law (1996 Revision) and shall be treated as binding for all purposes on the persons between whom it was made and may accordingly be relied upon by any of those persons by way of defence, set off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in the Islands and any reference in this Law to enforcing a Convention award shall be construed as including references to relying on such award.”

Process
To have a foreign arbitral award enforced in the Cayman Islands, an interested party must apply to the Grand Court. The application must be made by filing an ex parte motion, which is the standard approach for the recognition of foreign awards. A certified copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement (or a certified copy of the original agreement) must be submitted with the application.

Grounds for Refusal
The Cayman Islands’ enforcement regime operates with a clear presumption of recognition.[1] However, section 7 of the Act, which largely reflects the exceptions contained in the New York Convention, provides that enforcement may be refused if the respondent is able to prove one or more of the following grounds:

Incapacity: Enforcement will be refused if a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity.
Invalidity: Enforcement may be denied if the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, in the absence of such a choice, under the law of the country where the award was made.
Lack of Notice: An award will not be enforced if the party against whom it is invoked was not given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, or if they were unable to present their case.
Non-arbitrability: Matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement will not be enforced.
Composition: If the composition of the arbitral authority or the procedure were not in accordance with the arbitration agreement, then the award will not be enforced.
Unbinding: An award which has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority will not be enforced.
Contrary to Public Policy: Enforcement will be refused if the award is found to be contrary to the public policy of the Cayman Islands. The scope of “public policy” is interpreted narrowly, ensuring that only awards that are flagrantly inconsistent with fundamental principles of justice are denied enforcement.

Except in very limited circumstances, enforcement should be granted, ensuring that the Cayman Islands remain a favourable forum for resolving cross-border conflicts. In Al Haidar-v-Roa, FSD 32/2022 (IKJ) dated 3 February 2023 (unreported), the Honourable Justice Kawaley reiterated that: “the grounds for refusing enforcement are limited should be construed narrowly and the respondent will bear the burden at any inter partes hearing of demonstrating that such grounds are made out”.

Exequatur Procedure
The Act employs the concept of “exequatur,” a legal procedure by which a foreign arbitral award is transformed into a judgment of the Cayman Islands courts, making it enforceable as a local court judgment. The procedure involves applying to the Grand Court for an order that recognises and enforces the foreign arbitral award. Once granted, the award can be enforced in the same manner as any other court judgment through a number of different enforcement remedies.

Appeals
An unsuccessful party seeking to contest the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may appeal the Grand Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal. However, such appeals are typically limited to issues of law, such as whether the award meets the statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement under the Act. The grounds for appeal are restricted to the same narrow grounds upon which the enforcement of the award could have been denied in the first instance.

Conclusion
The Act ensures that the Cayman Islands remains a favourable jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. By aligning its domestic laws with the New York Convention, the Cayman Islands provides a self-contained procedural mechanism for enforcing international arbitration awards, promoting the stability and certainty necessary for cross-border commercial disputes.

[1] See Application for the Enforcement of a Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institute Arbitration Award (unreported, 8 March 2024, Kawaley).

In the matter of Cayman Shores Development Ltd v The Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 79 [2025] UKPC 27, the Privy Council issued their judgment confirming that property rights attached to resort facilities remain valid and binding, even where documentation errors occur during registration. The judgement offers key guidance on how courts should treat mislabeled land rights. HSM Paralegal Merary Eden covers this topic.

Background

The dispute involved the current Britannia residential owners (the “Homeowners”) and Cayman Shores Development Ltd (the “Developer”). The Homeowners argued they held long-standing rights to use the resort’s recreational facilities, including the beach club, golf course, and tennis courts, based on agreements made and registered in the 1990s during the phased development of the resort. These rights were intended to benefit not only the original purchasers but also future owners. Although the agreements were registered on the Land Register, they were labelled as “restrictive agreements” rather than “easements.” After acquiring the land in 2016, the Developers challenged the validity of these rights and instead offered the Homeowners licences to use the facilities.

The primary issues of the dispute were:

Whether recreational rights were properly registered as binding property rights?
Whether rights labeled as “restrictive agreements” instead of “easements” invalidated the registration?
Whether the land register could be corrected if there was a registration mistake?
Whether recreational facility access rights could legally qualify as easements under Cayman law?

At first instance, the trial court ruled in favour of the Homeowners, finding that the rights met the legal definition of easements and were properly registered in substance, despite being mislabelled as restrictive agreements. The judge ordered the land register to be corrected to reflect that. However, the Court of Appeal (“COA”) disagreed, and the first instance judgment was overturned on appeal. While the COA acknowledged that the rights might resemble easements in nature, it held they were not validly registered as such because they were never clearly labelled or intended to be easements. It also denied rectification, noting it was “unfortunate that the proprietors must bear the consequences” of using the wrong legal mechanism.

Privy Council’s Decision

The Privy Council reversed that decision, taking a broader, substance-over-form approach and ruled in favour of the Homeowners. It held that the rights were easements all along and had been validly registered, however the mislabelling was a technical defect that did not undermine their legal effect. The Court determined that while the agreements were registered as restrictive agreements, they actually function as easements. The Privy Council focused on what the registered agreements actually promised rather than their technical classification, finding that the agreement attached to registered instrument clearly granted Homeowners ongoing access to the beach, golf course, and tennis courts.

As such, these property rights remain legally binding on the Developers who purchased the land, meaning they cannot simply deny access or demand new licensing agreements from the Homeowners.

Implications for Homeowners and Developers

This decision has important implications for both property owners and developers in that:

The ruling confirms that recreational rights can be enforceable easements, even if mislabelled during registration.
While the Court prioritized the intent and substance of the agreements, the case also serves as a reminder of the importance of careful drafting and proper registration of land rights. Using a law firm like HSM can help mitigate any risks.

This case may impact developers of future resorts where there are pre-existing rights in existence.

This is a positive outcome for homeowners who depend on shared facilities in residential developments, and a clear warning to developers and landowners who may seek to disregard or override those established rights.

While the primary purpose of any Will is to ensure your valuable property passes in accordance with your wishes, it is often forgotten that a Will can accomplish several non-financial objectives. HSM Partner Robert Mack shares these details as they pertain to Wills in the Cayman Islands.

Guardianship of Children & Pets

Where minor children are involved, a Will should nominate one or more individuals to take on parental responsibility where necessary. This is a highly personal choice and best not left to the courts to decide.

Many pet lovers will be keen to ensure someone is designated to care for their treasured companions. Such provisions can often be complex, especially for pets with long life expectancies, such as parrots or turtles which can live up to 100 years. Even the most common of pets, the humble dog, can live up to 30 years! A suitable pet guardian needs to be appointed with sufficient funds earmarked for pet care costs, indexed to inflation. Since there is scope for fraud by a pet guardian, provisions can be added to ensure a pet is (a) given adequate food and shelter (b) given regular health checks and (c) are microchipped to ensure they are not swapped out with an animal similar in appearance when the designated pet dies. Where a pet is of breeding age, thought also must be given to whether (or not) provisions should be made to support the pet’s offspring or arrange for them to be housed with another pet owner.

Funeral Arrangements

Sometimes specific arrangements are included for personal or religious reasons. For example, in the Jewish and Islamic traditions cremation is not generally permitted. Other protocols rooted in religious tradition can be specified in a Will to ensure conformity with such traditions.

For secular reasons it is often desirable to be as specific as possible about final arrangements, otherwise the family or the executors will be forced to guess which arrangements are most appropriate, which will cause added stress to the family at a difficult time.

Paying in advance for the funeral is an extremely selfless act. Such arrangements can be referenced in a Will so the executors know it has been dealt with.

Gifts of Sentimental Items

It is possible to designate any item of sentimental value to recipients of your choice. This could be treasured photos, jewelry, or other items of a personal nature. This enables designated heirlooms to remain with the family for future generations to enjoy.

Digital Assets & Social Media Management

Virtual or digital property with minimal or sentimental value such as photos & video files, documents, and online music collections can be dealt with in a Will.

Valuable virtual property such as cryptocurrencies, websites, domain names, virtual payment wallets, intellectual property, store credits, airmiles, and online gaming accounts can also be identified in a Will so they are not overlooked.

Management of an online presence posthumously is also possible. This will enable the executors to manage social media accounts and post any final messages before deactivation. This will spare the executors the arduous task of dealing with large social media organizations. There may also be reasons to maintain a social media account posthumously, for example, if online content created by the deceased continues to produce revenue for the estate.

Testamentary Freedom

In the Cayman Islands there is no legislation which can prevent an otherwise mentally competent adult from disposing of their Cayman property by their Will as they see fit. So long as the Will is technically valid, and the assets subject to the Will are the lawful property of the testator / testatrix, any lawful instructions in the Will must be carried out by the executors as specified. This is not the case in many other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, which has laws in place that restricts testamentary freedom.

In the Cayman Islands, the registration and payment of stamp duty on leases is essential to ensure compliance with local statutory requirements. HSM Property Partner Linda DaCosta provides an overview of the legal obligations related to leases exceeding two years in the Cayman Islands, including registration procedures and stamp duty rates.

What is a Lease?
A lease is a contract by which the legal registered proprietor of property (the “Landlord”), grants exclusive possession of that property to another person or company (the “Tenant”), in exchange for the tenant’s periodic payment of a sum of money.[1]

What is Stamp Duty?
Stamp duty is a form of tax that is levied on certain legal documents, including leases. It serves as an official recognition of the transaction and contributes to government revenues. The Stamp Duty Act (2019 Revision) (the “Stamp Duty Act”) governs the application of stamp duty in the Cayman Islands.

When is Stamp Duty Required on a Lease?
Leases of any term are subject to stamp duty in the Cayman Islands. This applies to both commercial and residential premises. Stamp duty shall be payable at the time of execution of the document, or within 45 days of execution.[2]

How is Stamp Duty Calculated?
The stamp duty on leases is calculated as a percentage of the average annual rent over the term of the lease. Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges and other tenant outlays under the lease are excluded from the calculation of rent.

The rate of stamp duty is typically as follows:

Rate	Lease Term
5% of Average Annual Rent or Assessed Market Rent[3] (whichever is higher).	For a lease term of 5 years or less, where no premium is payable.
10% of Average Annual Rent or Assessed Market Rent (whichever is higher).	For a lease term of between 5 and 10 years, where no premium is payable.
20% of Average Annual Rent or Assessed Market Rent (whichever is higher).	For a lease term of between 10 and 30 years, where no premium is payable.
As above plus Duty assessed on a Transfer of Land on the value of the premium.	For a lease term of 30 years or less, where a premium is payable.
Assessed on the Market Value of the Freehold interest at Duty rate a Transfer of Land.	For a lease term of over 30 years.

When are Leases required to be Registered?
Pursuant to section 46 of the Registered Land Act (2018 Revision) (the “Registered Land Act”), leases exceeding two years must be registered with the Lands and Survey Department. Registration in the prescribed form provides public notice of the lease and protects the parties’ rights in the event of disputes or challenges.

What are the Penalties for Non-Compliance?
Failing to pay the required stamp duty on a lease can result in significant penalties, including:

Fines: Pursuant to section 23 of the Stamp Duty Act, a monetary fine of twice the amount of the deficiency will be payable on unstamped leases.
Disputes in Enforceability: Subject to the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act (2019 Revision) and section 23 of the Stamp Duty Act, a lease may not be enforceable in a court of law if it is not properly stamped (or up-stamped if penalties are payable).

Conclusion
Understanding these legal requirements is essential for anyone entering into such leases, whether for residential or commercial purposes. By registering leases and ensuring stamp duty is paid, landlords and tenants protect their interests and remain in compliance with local laws, avoiding potential fines and legal complications.

For assistance with registering leases or understanding your stamp duty obligations, it is advisable to consult a qualified Attorney in the Cayman Islands who can guide you through the process and ensure compliance with all relevant regulations.

Footnotes

[1] Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809

[2] Section 20 of the Stamp Duty Act.

[3] Assessed Market Rent is defined in the Act as: “the estimated amount for which the property should let on the day of the valuation between a willing lessor and a willing lessee on appropriate lease terms in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had acted knowledgably, prudently and without compulsion.” In other words, stamp duty is payable either as a percentage of the actual rent unless government believe it is being rented at an undervalue, in which case, it will be assessed at market rate.

There have been recent reports in the UK Press about certain Caribbean countries “selling” citizenship. The BBC report that Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Lucia all provide Citizenship by Investment (“CBI”) for as little as $200,000.

While such programmes are not new, they occasionally attract controversy. For instance, in 2003, Nauru, a small Pacific Island, sold Citizenship to an individual who was later arrested as a member of Al-Qaeda.

More recently in April 2025, the EU Court of Justice ruled that the Maltese scheme which one could purchase Maltese Citizenship (and thus become a citizen of the EU) for 600,000 Euros was unlawful.

The Cayman Islands’ approach differs significantly and is unlikely to fall foul of similar legal or ethical scrutiny. Notably, obtaining Permanent Residence in the Cayman Islands as a Person of Independent Means (“PIMS”) does not automatically confer British Overseas Territories Citizenship (“BOTC”).

For $2million invested in developed real estate in the Cayman Islands, one can become a Permanent Resident of the Cayman Islands as a Person of Independent Means (“PIMS”). That means the individual has only crossed the first step into becoming a BOTC. To become a BOTC, the individual would still have to live in the Cayman Islands for at least 5 years and the Cayman Islands will have to be their home throughout that period. We are noticing several applications for BOTC are being rejected when the individual has spent more than 90 days outside of the Cayman Islands in the year proceeding the application, or more than 450 days outside the islands in the previous 5 years.

It therefore would be highly unlikely for a PIMS to become Naturalised as a BOTC if they had spent minimal time in the Cayman Islands.

For these reasons, it is believed that the current residency programme in the Cayman Islands is far more secure and superior to those of other countries. Investors to the Cayman Islands should be aware that a PIMS permission is only the first step to becoming a BOTC and potentially to becoming a Caymanian. It is not an automatic endpoint. This long-term and merit-based structure makes the Cayman Islands progamme a more attractive and credible investment opportunity compared to the other international offerings.

The Government of Bermuda has announced that the enactment of the Trade Marks Amendment Act 2025 (the “Amendment Act”), originally scheduled for 1 July 2025, has been pushed back, and has been enacted as of 1 August 2025. The Amendment Act amends the Trade Marks Act 2023 (the “Incoming Act”) and provides new Regulations, including updated official fees.

The Amendment Act seeks to address issues arising out of the practical implementation of the Incoming Act, identified by the Bermuda Registry General, as well as via consultation with local IP practitioners and members of the private sector. Increased funding allocated to the Registry General, in tandem with the adjustments addressed by the Act, are set to streamline trade marks processes in Bermuda for Registry staff and service users alike.

As well as addressing gaps identified in the incoming Act, specifically with regard to the transmission of marks, the Amendment Act is accompanied by a Schedule of Fees, which includes details of official fees for actions introduced under the new legislation, including processes introduced under the Incoming Act, such as for the registration of marks in multiple Classes, merging multiple registrations into a single registration and designating Bermuda in an international trade mark registration, made via WIPO under the Madrid Protocol.

On 12 June 2025, Bermuda’s Minister of Economy and Labour, Jason Hayward, announced that the new legislation will commence on 1 August 2025.

HSM IP looks forward to the upcoming implementation of the incoming Act, as amended, representing as it does a significant step forward in the protection and management of trade marks in Bermuda. The introduction of the new trade marks legislation is part of a wider and ongoing effort by the Bermuda Government to modernise its laws governing intellectual property, and updates to the laws governing patents, designs and copyright are expected, though there is as yet no official indication as to the timeline.

The HSM Group displays its commitment to Caymanians by supporting Alyson Parsons, HSM Marketing Manager, to take part in the Leadership Cayman 2025 Programme.

Alyson successfully completed the programme and graduated alongside 21 other esteemed leaders on 12 July 2025.

Leadership Cayman is a six-month course introduced by the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce and provides people with opportunities to learn about the different industries alongside any issues or opportunities facing the Cayman Islands. Participants are selected through an interview process and attend bi-weekly seminars, learning from industry experts who serve as panelists at each session.

Panelists are carefully selected by participants and are widely known to be leaders in their field. HSM is proud to have been included for the seminar on Immigration and Workplace Development. HSM Partner, Alastair David, was invited to participate as a key speaker and explained components of the law, pathways to becoming Caymanian and human rights.

“Investing in our people not only strengthens our team, but contributes to the wider community we serve. Congratulations, Alyson and well done, Alastair!” shares HSM Managing Partner, Huw Moses OBE.

Other Leadership Cayman seminars included: media, technology, financial services, criminal justice, human services and healthcare, culture and heritage, infrastructure and development, sustainability and the environment, tourism, education and the Cayman Islands Government.

“The Leadership Cayman Programme has been such an incredible experience,” shares Alyson. I have made valuable connections and enjoyed industry tours, including going inside the Air Traffic Control Tower. It was a major time commitment and I am grateful to have had HSM’s support.”

HSM Chambers is pleased to announce the addition of Lisa Donalds to its legal team. Lisa joins as an Associate and is a part of the litigation team specialising in family law.

With over 10 years of experience in the legal field, Lisa continues a legacy of public service inspired by her mother, Grace Donalds, who has served as a distinguished magistrate in the Cayman Islands.

Lisa’s professional background includes being a Crown Counsel II for the Cayman Islands Government for several years and she once served as a Senior Policy and Development Officer at the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. Prior to joining HSM, she worked at Maples Group.

Lisa successfully completed her Legal Practice Course at BBP Law School in 2013 and received a Bachelor of Laws degree (upper second class honours) from the University of Liverpool/Truman Bodden Law School in 2012. Lisa was called to the Cayman Islands Bar in 2015.

“We are thrilled to welcome Lisa to the firm,” shares Managing Partner, Huw Moses, OBE. “Her strong legal background combined with her deep ties to the community make her a perfect fit for our team.”

As part of Lisa’s practice, she will help people navigate through divorce and separation, financial considerations, custody matters, property settlement and other litigation matters.

The HSM Group is proud to continue its summer internship programme with four young professionals: Jayden Nembhard, Shannell Stewart, Azaria Ruiz‑Bodden and Ahmoya Morrison.

These individuals were a part of the 2024-25 CIFEC internship curriculum, which began in October 2024 through April 2025. Each student attended work twice a week during school hours and was carefully paired with a lawyer or expert at HSM.

HSM’s Summer Internship Programme began on 1 July 2025 and runs through the end of August 2025.

HSM Managing Partner, Huw Moses OBE shares: “Through our summer internship programme, these individuals will engage in meaningful legal work, strengthen their practical skills and gain greater exposure to the industry.”

HSM’s interns have commented on their time so far:

“Every step in my journey working at HSM has been a lesson in growth and I cannot wait to learn more during this summer internship, learning the worlds of finance, marketing, and intellectual property. I am reminded that success is rooted in perseverance, curiosity, and the continuous pursuit of knowledge.” – Jayden

“Working with the professionals at HSM has solidified my desire to enter the legal field. The most rewarding aspect was gaining a comprehensive understanding of various legal processes. The team is incredibly supportive, making me feel included throughout my experience. For future interns, my advice is to be punctual, open to feedback, and embrace learning.” – Shannell

“I always knew I wanted to work in the legal field, whether in corporate or criminal law, and my internship at HSM was the perfect way to get started. I not only sharpened my existing skills but also learned new talents to apply in the working world. Working with some of the best attorneys and paralegals in Cayman made me eager to learn something new every day. To any intern who is interested in working here all I can say is good luck and be kind to yourself, you do not have to be perfect.” – Azaria

“When I first joined HSM, I was unsure about my career goals, considering criminal law. However, working at HSM has enlightened me and shaped a new path. The support from everyone at HSM made my integration into the office culture seamless. My advice to future interns is to stay relaxed, bring a positive mindset and enjoy the experience.” – Ahmoya

The HSM Group is a full-service law firm and corporate services provider, which offers interns the ability to gain experiences across a wide range of practices including property, family, debt collection, intellectual property, corporate services and even areas outside of law, such as marketing and finance.

HSM has supported the CIFEC Internship Programme since 2012 and also offers sponsorship opportunities for further education. HSM employs several CIFEC graduates full-time.

Photo (L-R): Huw Moses (HSM Managing Partner) seated in front of HSM interns: Jayden Nembhard, Shannell Stewart, Azaria Ruiz Bodden and Ahmoya Morrison

Since the 1980s employers in the Cayman Islands have understood that they might face repercussions for unfairly dismissing an employee, but as a result of a recent charge brought before the Summary Court of the Cayman Islands, employers now face the prospect of being prosecuted for discriminating against their employees or potential employees. HSM Partner Alastair David delves into this topic.

It is understood that the recent charge filed in the Summary Court is pursuant to, a little used section in the Labour Act (2021 Revision), that is Section 80 of the Labour Act (2022 Revision), which states:

(1) No person (whether an employer or an employee) shall discriminate with respect to any person’s hire, promotion, dismissal, tenure, wages, hours or other conditions of employment, by reason of race, colour, creed, sex, pregnancy or any reason connected with pregnancy, age, mental or physical disability (provided their ability to perform the job is not impaired), political belief or the exercise of any rights under this or any other Law.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prohibiting the taking of any personnel action genuinely related to an employee’s ability to discharge the duties of the employment in question.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1), commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for twelve months.

While Section 80 of the Act has been in existence, in a similar form, since at least 1987, it is not known whether or not this section has ever been relied upon by the Department of Labour and Pension (“DLP”) or the Director of Public Prosecution (“DPP”) to bring a prosecution. Certainly, in recent memory, it is not believed to have ever been relied upon.

What is unusual about Section 80 of the Act is that a criminal sanction applies to what is normally a civil matter, i.e. dealt with in a Employment / Labour Tribunal. While it is the case that individuals can bring a claim in the Gender Equality Tribunal, who are claiming that they have been discriminated on the basis of their sex, gender, marital status or pregnancy, those people who believe that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their:

Race,
Colour,
Creed,
Political belief,
Age or
Physical or mental disability

Have in the past felt that they had no recourse in Law. It now appears that the DLP, with the support of the DPP, will certainly entertain a potential prosecution if the facts support one.

What is also interesting, and potentially concerning for employers is that Section 80 (1) of the Act does not appear to be limited to direct discrimination, i.e. an employer not employing an individual because they are a women, but also other types of discrimination. As Section 80 (1) uses the wording “any reason connected with …” it is possible to interpret the Act to include other forms of discrimination, i.e. indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability, etc. If that is the case, then employers in the Cayman Islands should be extra careful in dealing with individuals with protected characteristics to avoid ending up before the Summary Court of the Cayman Islands.

Section 80 (2) of the Act does provide some comfort for employers, in that they can successfully defend a prosecution if can show that their actions were genuinely related to the ability of the person to carry out the role. Whilst that may offer some crumb of comfort to the employers, it is suggested that all decisions employers make are thoroughly documented, so as to show a proper paper trial in regard to their actions.

What is also currently not clear is how the burden and standard of proof apply with respect to the Defence as set out in Section 80 (2) of the Act. Employment practitioners from the UK will be familiar with the reversable burden of proof in the Equality Act 2010, which when a Claimant has established facts which could amount to a contravention of the Act, the employer will have to explain the alleged treatment and show that there was no discrimination. However, that reversible burden is set out in the Act itself and it is suspected that the Defence as contained in Section 80 (2) of the Act will be more akin to self defence, i.e. when the Defence raise the issue, it will be for the Prosecution to disprove the defence.

It will be interesting to see if further prosecutions are instigated by the DLP and their outcome. In the meantime Employers should be aware of the risk of prosecution.

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