HSM LAW
Cayman Immigration: There May be Trouble Ahead
As the government prepares for a commencement date of 1 March 2026 for the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Act 2025 (“the Amendment Act”), it is becoming increasingly obvious that there will be a large number of individuals adversely affected Read more +
Privy Council Affirms Exclusion of Charitable Employees from Cayman Unfair Dismissal
An Overview of Attorney General of the Cayman Islands and another (Respondents) v. Shelliann Bush (Appellant) [2025] UKPC 39. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has confirmed that employees of charitable organisations in the Cayman Islands have no statutory Read more +
When is an Employee not an Employee in the Cayman Islands?
In the UK and around the world, a large amount of case law has developed around how to assess whether an individual is an employee or not. Companies such as Uber and Pimlico Plumbers have fought lengthy court battles to Read more +
HSM Review of the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Bill 2025 / Caymanian Protection Act
In October 2025, the Government proposed a change to the Immigration (Transition) Act (2022 Revision) (“the Current Law”) by publishing the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment and Validation) Bill 2025 (“the Bill”). In a 58-page document the Government set out the numerous Read more +
Cayman Islands Grand Court Reviews Law Governing Applications to Strike Out
Alexander Davies, HSM litigation attorney, applied on behalf of a defendant to proceedings, Butterfield Bank (Cayman) Limited, to strike out the plaintiff’s claim for want of prosecution. The claim for damages flows from a personal injury sustained when the plaintiff tripped on stairs on her employer’s premises in 2014. Proceedings were protectively issued in 2017. Following a protracted history, including an interlocutory appeal to the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal heard in 2019, and several changes of attorneys by the plaintiff, the case had ground to a halt. The key issue had become the plaintiff’s claimed permanent disability due to chronic pain, and whether this was caused by the index injury. The defendant’s nominated expert in chronic pain, whom had examined the Plaintiff in 2018, was by January 2024 no longer available to give evidence due to having retired.
Giving judgment on the application, Hon. Asif J. K.C. found that the plaintiff had caused or contributed to inordinate and inexcusable delay in bringing her claim, which had resulted in genuine prejudice to the defendant, and the test for striking out the claim was therefore satisfied. Rather than striking out the entire claim, however, the learned Judge instead restricted the scope of the claim, debarring the plaintiff from pursuing a claim based upon the reported chronic pain and associated disability.
The judgment on 10 July 2024 provides a useful summary and review of the law pertaining to applications to strike out proceedings for want of prosecution in the Cayman Islands.