Exploring Offshore Litigation

About Exploring Offshore Litigation

Exploring Offshore Litigation is a captivating podcast series containing audio of written blog content that dives deep into the intriguing world of offshore litigation, including the BVI and Cayman. Each episode sails through complex legal waters, bringing you up-to-date analysis of recent high-stakes cases and expert commentary from the leading minds in this specialised field. Our episodes demystify legal jargon and break down complex cases to make them accessible to all. Harneys, an international law firm with entrepreneurial thinking, brings each episode to you.

Publisher

Harneys

Category

business · business · government

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

21 Dec 2023

Latest episode

9 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

265 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   9 Oct 2026

   An expanded BVI Commercial Court: strengthening the infrastructure for international disputes A Commercial Court built around international disputes Why does this matter? The expanded Court is only part of the story What should clients take from the development?

   The British Virgin Islands is set to expand its specialist commercial litigation offering. At its meeting on 19 August 2026, Cabinet approved the expansion, together with funding through to 2029 for an additional Commercial Judge, supporting court administration staff and commercial rental space. It is expected this expanded Court will commence hearing matters in the fourth quarter of 2026. The announcement reflects a broader investment in the capacity and infrastructure of the BVI's commercial justice system at a time when the disputes arising from the jurisdiction's role as an international financial centre are increasingly complex, cross-border and time-sensitive. The BVI Commercial Court was established in 2009 and has developed into a specialist forum for commercial disputes. The Court has jurisdiction to hear commercial matters across the nine member jurisdictions of the ECSC, although its work is predominantly BVI-focused. Claims ordinarily falling within its jurisdiction have a minimum value of US$500,000, with many matters significantly exceeding that threshold. The nature of the Court's work reflects the international use of BVI corporate structures. The ECSC has itself described the BVI Commercial Court's caseload as consisting of "high value, complex, cross-border litigation", with particular concentrations in company, insolvency, trusts, asset recovery and enforcement matters. Its recruitment materials also recognise the wider significance of the Court's work, noting that its decisions are influential in other common law jurisdictions. For a dispute involving a BVI company, the issues rarely stop at the BVI's borders. Parties, assets, witnesses, financing arrangements and related proceedings may be spread across multiple jurisdictions. The Court must therefore be equipped not only to determine substantive commercial disputes, but also to deal efficiently with the procedural and interim issues that commonly arise in international litigation. Commercial proceedings may require urgent injunctive relief, applications concerning assets located overseas, service outside the jurisdiction, evidence from foreign witnesses, recognition of foreign insolvency officeholders or coordination with proceedings in another jurisdiction. The addition of an expanded Commercial Court will provide further capacity to support these objectives. The Cabinet announcement is also notable because the investment extends beyond the Judge, Court space and staff. In addition, the Government's 2026 budget programme identifies a number of technological developments intended to improve the wider court experience. These include the continued development of the electronic case management platform, additional training for Judges and support staff, voice-to-text technology for Court reporters and work towards an improved electronic search facility for Registry records. For businesses and investors using BVI structures, access to the BVI's specialist Commercial Court which is familiar with complex corporate, insolvency and cross-border issues can be an important consideration. An expanded Commercial Court, together with investment in court administration, technology and physical infrastructure, represents a further strengthening of that framework and ensures the BVI will continue to be a significant centre for the resolution of international commercial disputes.

2. 

   2 Oct 2026

   Freezing orders, delay and proprietary injunctions: key lessons from Alliance Petrochemical v Mazzagatti Background The WWFO application The applicable principles The impact of delay API's three new grounds: all rejected The proprietary injunction A BVI perspective Freezing orders in the BVI Practical takeaways for offshore litigators

   The English Commercial Court has confirmed that delay in seeking a freezing order and proprietary injunction can be fatal to the application. In Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Mazzagatti , the Court refused API's application for a worldwide freezing order (WWFO) and a proprietary injunction after Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd (API) waited approximately 17 months to apply and did not produce new evidence of dissipation. The judgment arose from allegations that at least €143 million had been misappropriated from API, a Singapore-incorporated petrochemical company, and its subsidiary, Alliance Petrochemicals Trading LLC (APT). API alleged that its former CEO, Mr Mazzagatti, and his associate, Mr Dixit, misappropriated at least €143,808,798.66 from API and APT. It said the money was diverted through customer payments, profits routed through Napag IT Limited, and direct withdrawals from API and APT's bank accounts. API alleged that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds financed the acquisition of RockRose Energy plc by Viaro Energy Limited, a company indirectly 96.4 per cent owned by Mr Mazzagatti. API also alleged that Viaro Energy relied on forged loan facility documents, purportedly from two Abu Dhabi individuals for £250 million each (the Abu Dhabi Loan Facilities), to present the acquisition as having legitimate financing. The court refused API's application for a WWFO, which sought to restrain assets up to €160 million. API had established serious issues to be tried. The decisive question was whether there was a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets. The test for a freezing injunction is well established. The applicant must show: 1. a good arguable case/serious issue to be tried; 2. a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of an unjustified dissipation of assets; and 3. that it would be just and convenient to grant the order. The court also noted, citing Holyoake v Candy, that such orders "have the nuclear effect of prohibiting the affected party from dealing with his assets". The court's refusal turned principally on delay. API first requested freezing undertakings from the Defendants in a letter dated 8 August 2024, the day after the Claim Form was issued. The Defendants declined to provide the undertakings, characterising API's claimed risk of dissipation as "risible". Approximately 17 months later, API issued its WWFO application in January 2026. During that period, API's principal allegations of fraud and forgery had not materially changed. Drawing on the principles in Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven, the court acknowledged that delay alone is not dispositive but held that it can be "a powerful consideration". Critically, the court required API to demonstrate new evidence of dissipation risk that had emerged since the delay. API relied on three developments to justify the timing of its application: Viaro Investment Limited's financial vulnerability: API's expert suggested that Viaro Investment, Viaro Energy and RockRose were financially vulnerable. The court found that API's case "conflates assets belonging to the Defendants, on the one hand, and assets belonging to the Viaro Group, on the other" and that transactions by the companies did not amount to dissipation by Mr Mazzagatti personally. The TAQA Court of Appeal decision: The court held that this did not suggest a propensity to strip assets, noting that the first instance findings favourable to Mr Mazzagatti "have not been disturbed by the Court of Appeal". Excessive remuneration: Whilst acknowledging that the Defendants' salaries were "undoubtedly extremely generous" (Mr Mazzagatti received £68.4 million and Mr Dixit £20.1 million between 2022 and 2024), the court found that Mr Mazzagatti's remuneration was contractually linked to a fixed percentage of EBITDA, fully disclosed in company accounts, and made in the ordinary course of business. ...

3. 

   23 Sept 2026

   When Irrevocable Becomes Revocable: Jersey Royal Court Blesses Reversal of Settlor Exclusion Following Abolition of the Non-Dom Regime Background The Article 47 variation The B Trust The Article 51 Blessing Comment

   In In the Matter of the Affinity Trust and the V Trust, the Jersey Royal Court approved the variation of a discretionary trust to reverse the irrevocable exclusion of its settlor as a beneficiary and blessed the trustee's decisions to re-admit the settlor and distribute approximately £4.8 million to him. The decision addresses the application of Articles 47 and 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 in the context of trust restructurings prompted by the abolition of the UK Non-Dom regime. The V Trust was a Jersey discretionary trust established in 2001. In 2017, the Settlor was irrevocably excluded as a beneficiary on English tax advice, the objective being to prevent the Trust from being treated as "settlor interested" by HMRC. However, the exclusion proved ineffective as the Settlor's wife had not been simultaneously excluded, and her potential addition as a beneficiary was sufficient to attribute Trust income to the Settlor for UK tax purposes. Following the abolition of the Non-Dom regime from 6 April 2025, annual UK tax liabilities were projected to reach "tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds", with substantial inheritance tax charges arising every ten years. The Settlor therefore asked the trustee to apply to the Royal Court to reverse his exclusion, re-admit him as a beneficiary, and distribute approximately £4.8 million to him, which he would then gift to his four adult children. The proposed distribution was structured to take advantage of the UK's Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF), which permits distributions at a 12% rate if made by 5 April 2027. The Court was asked to approve the variation of the Trust under Article 47 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 on behalf of the minor and unborn beneficiaries, so as to reverse the Settlor's irrevocable exclusion. Article 47 empowers the court to approve, on behalf of persons unable to consent, any arrangement varying or revoking the terms of a trust or enlarging the trustee's powers of management and administration. The Court followed previous decisions, confirming that its understanding of the word "arrangement" has a wide construction, so long as it benefits to some extent those persons who cannot consent, citing Mubarik v Mubarik [2008]. The Court noted that this approach had already been taken to revoke a settlor's irrevocable exclusion from the class of beneficiaries, most recently in IQEQ (Jersey) Limited Re B Trust [2024]. On the question of "benefit", the Court also applied the broad principles of construction endorsed in Re Weston's Settlements [1969], in which Lord Denning MR observed that "nearly every variation" before the court has tax avoidance as its principal object and "no one has ever suggested that this is undesirable or contrary to public policy." The Court acknowledged previous warnings against "overt tax avoidance" and noted that, where a variation affects the irrevocable exercise of a power, it will give "particularly close examination" to the underlying motivation. It held that legitimate tax planning would usually benefit those who cannot look to their own interests, and that this threshold was therefore met on the facts. The Court ordered the variation so as to render the Settlor's exclusion revocable. In reaching its decision, the Court assessed the balance of risk by reference to the points raised by the Court in The B Trust [2024]: why would a settlor not be expected to provide for their family if the assets are appointed back to them; and what would the Court say to the minor and unborn beneficiaries if it refused the variation? The Court in the present case adopted the same reasoning as in The B Trust. Without the proposed arrangement, annual tax charges would steadily drain the Trust's assets, and the Settlor's additional US tax position further constrained the trustee's ability to make tax-efficient appointments. The Settlor could reasonably be expected to pass the wealth to the next generation, an expectation supported by the Trustee, th...

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

YouTube views

158,823

Score snapshot 15 Sept 2025

Podcast Authority Score: 62 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

79

Social presence

0

YouTube

82

Engagement

27

Contact Exploring Offshore Litigation

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.