HSM LAW

15/04/2026 | hsmoffice

Cayman Immigration: Section 64 Update

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 Read more +

07/04/2026 | hsmoffice

HSM Tribute to Oscar DaCosta

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 Read more +

01/04/2026 | hsmoffice

The ‘X Trusts’ Case – The Privy Council Confirms Protectors May Have a Substantive Fiduciary Role

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 Read more +

31/03/2026 | hsmoffice

Cayman Immigration Law Changes Will Take Effect on 1 May 2026

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 Read more +

Cayman Immigration: Section 64 Update

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.

On its face, the legislation applies to all work permit holders, subject only to the timing of the triggering event (i.e. when the person “ceases to be employed” within two years of the grant of the permit).

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.

The only potentially relevant transitional provision provides that existing permits “shall continue in force until [their] expiration, loss or cancellation.” This provision preserves the validity of the permit itself, not the legal regime governing the consequences of termination of employment. It is therefore not clear how this can be a saving provision.

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).

If the Department is correct and the new Section 64 only applies to applications granted post 1 May 2026 and if the old Section 64 is repealed and there are no saving provisions, it could be the case that any current work permit holder will be able to change their employment and will not have to satisfy either the special circumstances test in the old Act or the prescribed circumstances test in the new act.

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.

It is interesting that the “prescribed circumstances” will also continue to afford the Director a wide discretion in matters. At the current time, it is noted that the following circumstances are not seemingly “prescribed”:

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.

Employees in the above situations will have to rely upon the Director utilising their discretion for them to be free of the early roll over provisions.

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.