UK Privy Council Considers a Declaration of Incompatibility Regarding the Cayman Islands’ Immigration Act

On 3 February 2025, the Privy Council in London considered a Declaration of Incompatibility made by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in respect to Section 37 (3) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2021 Revision).

This section of the Act is the one that grants or rejects an individual’s application for Permanent Residence in the Cayman Islands.

The Court of Appeal declared Section 37 (3) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2021 Revision) incompatible with Section 9 of the Bill of Rights on the basis that there was no ability to consider an applicant’s constitutional rights and carry out a proportionality exercise in the award of Permanent Residence. It is this decision that is being appealed by the Attorney General of the Cayman Islands.

HSM Partner, Mr. Alastair David, originally highlighted the issue that the aforementioned Act is incompatible with the constitution namely Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, which provides rights to family life and/or private life to residents in the Cayman Islands.

This is as far as we are aware, the first time, the Privy Council have been asked to review a decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal which relates solely to an Immigration matter arising in the Cayman Islands.

The Cayman Islands Permanent Residence system is a points based system, which awards Permanent Residence to those individuals who obtain 110 points or more upon a consideration of their application. There is not a separate human rights consideration or a proportionality consideration and in the event that an individual’s application is rejected and they have no other way of remaining in the Cayman Islands, they are expected to leave for at least a year.

The Privy Council were asked to consider various aspects of the Immigration system and the Permanent Residence system and in particular Section 53 (1)(b) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2021 Revision) which the Cayman Islands Government says provides an alternative means to reside in the Cayman Islands. This alternative permits the Cabinet of the Cayman Islands to grant permissions to individuals to remain outside of the Work Permit regime, but there are very few policies or guidance in regards to this system, and in HSM’s experience an application of this nature can take up to a year to be considered.

Both the original Claimant’s, Mr. Buray and Mr. D’Souza, did not take part in the matter before the Privy Council, however HSM Chambers represented Miss Jones-Hunter who had been granted permission to act as an intervenor. Miss Jones-Hunter’s case was presented by Mr. Manjit Singh Gill KC of No 5 Chambers, who was instructed by HSM’s Mr. Alastair David.

The Attorney General of the Cayman Islands was represented by Tom Hickman KC and he led Will Bordell, both of whom are from Blackstone Chambers.

The judgment is expected in the next few months.