In Your Court: Ogier's dispute resolution review - February 2026

As we settle into 2026, our global Dispute Resolution team have highlighted some significant case developments and key insights from our international jurisdictions so far this year.

In Jersey, our shareholder disputes specialists obtained orders from the Master of the Royal Court to strike out the entirety of the plaintiff’s claims and grant a reverse summary judgment in favour of our client in Halabi v Farrow & Ors.

In the Cayman Islands, our insurance disputes experts have successfully defended a claim that the statutory obligation under section 15(1) of the Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act was not triggered, while in Hong Kong, partner Joanne Collett assisted Ogier's Corporate team by utilising section 239 of the Cayman Companies Act in a going-private transaction.

Meanwhile, our team in Ireland have supported the Federation of Irish Sport and various national governing sport bodies with tax and legal reviews following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza case.

Enjoy reading all of this and more in this edition of In Your Court. If you have any questions, please reach out to your regular Ogier contact or any member of our global Dispute Resolution team. 

Cross-border insolvency: examination of former officers and directors in the BVI and Cayman

In today’s global financial environment, it is becoming increasingly common for liquidators to have to look beyond their home jurisdictions to identify, secure and ultimately realise a company's assets. 

One of the most powerful, but often overlooked, investigative tools in any office holder's armoury is the ability to apply to the court to examine a former director or officer of a company in liquidation, who has demonstrated a reluctance to cooperate.  

Read more: Examination of former officers and directors in a cross-border insolvency context

Withered on the vine: Jersey's Royal Court grants and upholds strike out and reverse summary judgment in respect of breach of duty and dishonest assistance claims

The judgments in the case Halabi v Farrow & Ors [2025] JRC169 serve as important reminders of the need for caution and supporting evidence when considering making allegations of fraud, dishonesty or bad faith. 

Acting for the defending trust company and directors in this case, Ogier successfully obtained orders from the Master of the Royal Court striking out the entirety of the plaintiff’s claims and granting reverse summary judgment (the First Judgment). The plaintiff brought an appeal (the Appeal Judgment and together with the First Judgment, the Judgments) before the Royal Court against the First Judgment, which was dismissed (see Halabi v Farrow and Ors [2025] JRC326).  

Read more: Withered on the vine: Halabi v Farrow & Ors

Norwich Pharmacal relief in Guernsey: a strategic tool for asset tracing and enforcement

If your client suspects that an innocent third party may hold documents and information that could assist them with issuing legal proceedings or enforcing an existing judgment, what legal avenues exist to compel the release of this information? Particularly when pre-action disclosure is generally not available in Guernsey?

Norwich Pharmacal relief is a legal remedy that provides a jurisdiction to the Court to compel an innocent third party to disclose documents and information if they have inadvertently become involved in the suspected wrongdoing.

Read more: Norwich Pharmacal relief in Guernsey: a strategic tool for asset tracing and enforcement

Jensen v ICWI: Cayman Court clarifies when claims against insurers can be made directly under section 15(1) of the Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act

The Cayman Court’s decision in Jensen v ICWI (Cayman) Ltd [2026] CIGC (Civ) 4 confirms that the statutory obligation under section 15(1) of the Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act – for an insurer to satisfy a judgment obtained against a negligent insured – does not apply when the vehicle involved has been sold and ownership transferred prior to the collision. In this circumstance, the new owner is not considered “insured” for the purposes of section 15(1).

Acting on behalf of the Insurance Company of the West Indies (Cayman) Ltd, Ogier successfully defended the claim that the statutory obligation under section 15(1) was not triggered. 

Read more: Cayman Court clarifies when claims against insurers can be made under the Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act

Federation of Irish Sport navigates new Revenue guidance with tax and legal support from Ogier

Ogier in Ireland recently supported the Federation of Irish Sport and various national governing sport bodies with tax and legal reviews following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza case, which clarified the employment status of contractors under Irish law.

This ruling, and Revenue’s subsequently updated guidance, has prompted many national governing sport bodies and federations to critically re-examine how they engage with individuals providing services.

Read more: Federation of Irish Sport navigates new Revenue guidance with tax and legal support from Ogier

Ogier advises longstanding client Zeekr on its going-private transaction

Ogier’s Corporate and Dispute Resolution teams in Hong Kong acted as Cayman Islands counsel to the Special Committee of the board of directors of Zeekr Intelligent Technology Holding Limited in connection with its going-private transaction.

The unique transaction utilised section 239 of the Companies Act (2025 Revision) (the Act) which disapplies section 238 of the Act. 

Read more:  Ogier advises Zeekr on its going-private transaction