Cayman Court refuses injunction in $270 million dispute
Charitable DAF HoldCo (In Official Liquidation) v Patrick & Ors [2026] CIGC (FSD) 9
11 Feb 2026
Share
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Raj Parker J) has handed down judgment refusing an application for an interim proprietary injunction in relation to a Cayman exempted limited partnership (“ELP”) established to invest and manage assets for the ultimate benefit of US charitable organisations.
The application was brought by joint official liquidators of the Plaintiff Company in support of proprietary claims pursued in respect of the limited partnership interest formerly held by the Company, which they alleged had been wrongfully disposed of by and/or for the benefit of the Defendants. The relief sought would have required the Defendants to (among other things) “preserve and… not in any way dispose of, deal with, encumber, transfer or diminish the value of… any interest in…” the ELP and its assets, without any exception for dealings in the ordinary course of business. That relief was sought in circumstances where no proprietary claim was made to those assets, and it was not suggested that there was any risk of unjustified dissipation to found an application for Mareva relief.
Raj Parker J refused the application, holding (among other things) that: (i) there was no serious issue to be tried that the Company had a sufficient proprietary interest in the assets over which the injunction was sought; and (ii) the balance of convenience was in any event against granting such relief where the assets were not in danger and having regard (among other things) to its impact on the ELP’s activities and the absence of a properly fortified cross-undertaking in damages.
The judgment contains guidance on the principles that apply to the grant of proprietary injunctions and the nature of a limited partner’s rights in an ELP. Of particular interest to English practitioners, Raj Parker J considered the decision in Koza Altin v Koza Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1018 and declined to follow English first instance authority which has taken it to support the proposition that a shareholder’s interest in a company suffices to justify imposing proprietary injunctive relief in relation to the company’s assets: see at [162]-[183].
A copy of the judgment appears here.
Andrew Scott KC (instructed by Mark Goodman, Ronan O’Doherty and George Connolly of Campbells LLP) appeared for D1, D3, D5, and D6.
