Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 OCTOBER 2025

Kryo Group Ltd v Securus Co Ltd And Another [2025] CIGC (FSD) 93

Collas Crill
Collas Crill
Contributor
Collas Crill

Collas Crill

Firm Details: Group Managing Partner: Jason Romer Managing Partners: Bermuda: Lilla Zuill, BVI:...

View firm profile
Explore more from Collas Crill

The Grand Court dismissed an application to seal a number of documents on the court file and anonymise proceedings in a commercial dispute involving estate and tax planning transactions.

Cayman IslandsLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Justina Stewart
Justina Stewart
Rocco Cecere
Rocco Cecere
Matthew Dors
Matthew Dors
Zachary Hoskin
Zachary Hoskin
Michael Adkins
Michael Adkins
David O'Hanlon
David O'Hanlon
Author LinkedIn connections

Court: Grand Court of the Cayman Islands

Subject: GCR Order 63, rule 3, open justice, application to seal court file to protect allegedly confidential information in pleading, whether pleaded information is confidential

Judge: Asif J

Summary

The Grand Court dismissed an application to seal a number of documents on the court file and anonymise proceedings in a commercial dispute involving estate and tax planning transactions.

The decision provides a helpful summary of relevant law, and highlights that open justice, protected by the Constitution and the GCR, remains the default position under Cayman Islands law, such that restrictions on access will only be granted where strictly necessary in the interests of justice.

Further details

Kryo Group argued disclosure of the names of lenders and borrowers breached contractual and common law duties of confidentiality, and risked commercial harm if made public. The Defendants opposed the application, noting the pleadings were already restricted to the parties and the court file was not open to public inspection without leave.

Asif J accepted the information was confidential between the parties under relevant agreements, but held that there was no breach since the information was already known to both the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and material remained accessible only to the parties and the Court. The Court therefore declined to seal the requested documents, observing the GCR already prevented non-parties from inspecting the court file without leave. The Court emphasised that sealing orders are exceptional and confidentiality concerns should instead be managed through targeted preventative measures if third party access is later sought, including redactions or applications to prevent inspection.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from