First word on non-party discovery: the Grand Court applies new Order 24 Rule 7A in China Shanshui

In Tianrui (International) Holding Company Limited v China Shanshui Cement Group Limited and others [2026] CIGC (FSD) 64, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Segal J) delivered what is understood to be the first judgment to apply the new Order 24, Rule 7A of the Grand Court Rules, which was incorporated into the Rules on 10 April 2026.

Ogier's Dispute Resolution team in the Cayman Islands acted for the successful applicant for the third-party discovery orders in this case.

As detailed in our earlier article on Cayman's new pre-action discovery regime, Rule 7A fills a long-recognised gap in Cayman civil procedure. Before its introduction, there was no efficient or dedicated statutory mechanism for obtaining documentary disclosure from a non-party, short of a third-party subpoena.

Grant of a non-party discovery order

Tianrui (International) Holding Company Limited v China Shanshui Cement Group Limited and others [2026] CIGC (FSD) 64 (Tianrui v China Shanshui) is a long-running and hotly contested just and equitable winding up petition proceeding. The underlying dispute arises from the company's decision in 2018 to allot and issue shares through convertible bonds to third parties, which had the effect of diluting the petitioner's shareholding from over 28% to approximately 21% (the Share Issue). The petitioner alleges that two other major shareholders caused the company to make the Share Issue to connected parties, with the improper purpose of diluting the petitioner's holding below the negative control threshold of 25%. An important question in the proceedings is the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries of the shareholders who were issued shares under the Share Issue. 

Having failed to obtain answers to this question in discovery or evidence and following the introduction of Rule 7A, the petitioner filed a summons seeking orders requiring four of the investment funds domiciled in the Cayman Islands who received shares under the Share Issue, but who were not parties to the winding-up petition, to disclose and produce documents relating to their beneficial ownership. The summons was supported by a regulatory partner employed by the petitioner's counsel. The regulatory partner set out the document retention requirements and typical local market practice for information pertaining to beneficial ownership under the Cayman Island anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime, and the beneficial ownership transparency regime.

Ultimately, Segal J granted the orders sought in the summons. He held that, on balance, it was just, fair and proportionate to allow the petitioner the opportunity to obtain the documents.

Satisfaction of the requirements under Rule 7A

Rule 7A(2) permits any party to existing proceedings to seek disclosure from a non-party once proceedings are on foot. The supporting affidavit must, under Rule 7A(3)(b), specify or describe the documents sought and show that they are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise in the proceedings and that the respondent is likely to have or have had them in its possession, custody or power. Rule 7A(6) preserves the position that no person can be compelled to produce documents that could not be compelled to do so by a third-party subpoena.

Segal J was satisfied on the evidence before him that:

• the documents were described with sufficient precision (notwithstanding some concern about their breadth and confidentiality)
• they were relevant as the documents sought related to an important pleaded issue
• the non-parties were the only likely source of the documents given that the information sought had not emerged in discovery or evidence filed to date
• the petitioner had shown that there was a "real prospect" that the non-parties will have the documents in their possession, custody or power

Applicability of Rule 7A to winding up proceedings

A notable feature of the decision is that no equivalent to Order 24, Rule 7A was introduced into the Companies Winding Up Rules (CWR). The petitioner’s summons was brought under CWR O.3, r.12(1)(i). Accepting the petitioner’s submission, Segal J held, following the decision of Kawaley J in Re Global Cord Blood Corporation [2023 (2) CILR 298], that the new non-party discovery jurisdiction should be available in winding-up proceedings governed by the CWR. The reasoning was that the purpose of Rule 7A is to increase efficiency and filling a gap in the law, which would be undermined if it applied only to proceedings under the Grand Court Rules.

Practical implications for practitioners

The decision offers practitioners early guidance. Applicants should frame requests as tightly and precisely as possible, tie each class of documents to a pleaded issue and demonstrate that the non-party is the only realistic source of the information sought. Breadth, confidentiality and timing will also bear on the exercise of the court’s discretion.

How Ogier can help

Ogier has extensive experience acting in complex Cayman Islands commercial litigation, shareholder disputes, insolvency and restructuring matters, including proceedings involving contested documentary disclosure, evidence-gathering and interlocutory applications.

Clients seeking advice on non-party discovery, shareholder disputes, winding-up proceedings or Cayman Islands litigation strategy should contact members of Ogier's Dispute Resolution team.

About Ogier

Ogier is a professional services firm with the knowledge and expertise to handle the most demanding and complex transactions and provide expert, efficient and cost-effective services to all our clients. We regularly win awards for the quality of our client service, our work and our people.

Disclaimer

This client briefing has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Ogier. The information and expressions of opinion which it contains are not intended to be a comprehensive study or to provide legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations.

Regulatory information can be found under Legal Notice