Privy Council Success for Dillon Eustace Cayman
Dillon Eustace’s Cayman Litigation Team, led by Partner, Conal Keane, successfully represented IGCF SPV 21 Limited (a special purpose vehicle which holds a significant stake in K-Electric, Pakistan’s largest energy company) in a recent appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
In a Judgment dated 24 November 2025 (which can be found here), the Privy Council dismissed the appeal of minority shareholders, Al Jomaih Power Limited and Denham Investment Ltd, which was premised on a reliance upon a 1976 decision of the English Court of Appeal in Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd (“Geoprosco”)[1]. The Geoprosco case was, according to the appellants, binding law in the Cayman Islands for the proposition that where a defendant voluntarily appears before a foreign court to invite the court not to exercise its jurisdiction (under its own local laws) it will have submitted to the jurisdiction. This includes applying for relief (interim or otherwise) in the foreign proceedings, or applying for a stay in those proceedings in favour of another jurisdiction.
This argument was advanced despite Geoprosco being reversed by statute in England and Wales as far back as 1982 and not being followed in any other common law jurisdiction. However the lack of an equivalent legislative provision in the Cayman Islands was, according to the appellants, sufficient to show that it still applied in that jurisdiction.
Previously, in June 2024, the Cayman Court of Appeal had ruled that Geoprosco should not be held to represent the law of Cayman and that there was good reason not to follow it. It decided that in all the circumstances the Grand Court Judge (Hon. Justice Nichalas Segal) had been correct to conclude that there had been no submission to the jurisdiction of the Pakistan court by IGCF SPV 21 Limited and it upheld his decision to grant an anti-suit injunction in its favour.
In its ruling, the Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeal and stated pointedly:
“[The Appellants’ revised case] is premised on a wrong interpretation of Geoprosco and what it decided. It is also contrary to the general understanding of what Geoprosco decided, the basis upon which legislative steps have been taken to reverse it, and the appellants’ own case hitherto. Having made one volte-face in these proceedings by advancing an entirely new case before the Court of Appeal, the appellants now seek to do so again. This is not how appellate litigation should be conducted. The decision in Geoprosco turned on the false distinction between challenges to the existence and to the exercise of jurisdiction. No such distinction should be drawn.”
Accordingly, the Privy Council ruled conclusively that Geoprosco had rightly been reversed in England and Wales and, by statute or case law, it had been reversed or not followed in other common law jurisdictions. It therefore should form no part of Cayman law.
Further, as regards what amounts to submission to jurisdiction, the Board confirmed that:
Cayman law should reflect what the law now is in England and Wales with the relevant principles and general rule set out in Rubin v Eurofinance SA FOOTNOTE [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236. The general rule in the ordinary case in England is that the party alleged to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court must have ‘taken some step which is only necessary or only useful if’ an objection to jurisdiction ‘has been actually waived, or if the objection has never been entertained at all’.
The general same rule applies regardless of the context in which the issue of submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign court arises. The rule is the same in anti-suit injunction cases as it is in enforcement cases.
The general rule can be expressed in positive rather than negative terms.
The appeal also marked the first time Dillon Eustace appeared at the Privy Council, the final court of appeal for many commonwealth countries, as well as the UK’s overseas territories (including Cayman) and crown dependencies.
Our Cayman team are ready to assist with any queries you may have in relation to the jurisdiction.
Footnote:
[1] [1976] QB 726
)