開曼群島大法院批准了受託人提出的匿名化和保密令申請，同時規定了此類命令的簽發原則。
法院承認，在包括英格蘭和威爾斯在內的一些司法管轄區，公開審判的進展速度很快。然而，法院也指出，開曼群島法院已盡力確保在私人信託案件中，將適當的隱私和保密問題作為公開審判原則的例外情況，並依法予以處理。
本案，即「關於D、E、F、G和H信託的案件」，[2026] CIGC (FSD) 36，涉及受託人在擬議的信託訴訟程序開始前申請匿名化及相關保密令。法院同意公開審判是一項“基本的憲法和普通法原則”，但同時指出，該原則並非絕對，根據2009年《開曼群島憲法令》第7(10)條的規定，在“為了維護司法公正，必要或適宜”的情況下，可以偏離公開審判原則。可以偏離公開審判原則的情況包括任何涉及保護隱私、未成年人福利以及機密財務或商業資訊的情況。
法院特別指出，在涉及隱私權益且不存在與之相抵觸的公共利益的情況下，內部信託程序通常足以構成頒布保密令的理由。此類程序通常涉及本質上屬於私人性質的訊息，包括個人財務狀況、信託的結構和管理，以及受益人（包括未成年人）的身份和地位。尤其是在離岸信託的情況下，除非涉及更廣泛的公共利益，否則出於對隱私甚至人身安全的合理擔憂，授予保密保護可能是合理的。
法院制定了三項原則來指導保密申請的判決。這三項原則是：
• 該案件屬於公認的可以例外適用公開審判程序的情形。
• 所尋求的保密措施是必要且適度的。
• 是否存在足以凌駕於所涉隱私利益之上的任何相反的公共利益
在本案中，法院認定該申請涉及私人內部信任糾紛，具有重大的隱私權，且不涉及任何與之相抵觸的公共利益。因此，法院頒布了保密和匿名化令，包括封存法院案卷、舉行非公開聽證會以及匿名公佈任何判決。
然而，報告指出，如果存在對透明度的相反的公共利益，例如涉及不當行為指控、監管或稅務問題，或其他具有更廣泛公共重要性的事項，那麼保密就更難證明其合理性。
「該判決確認，在真正私密的內部信託訴訟中，適當的保護措施仍然很容易獲得，」莫蘭律師事務所評論道。
• 同一法院在 2025 年的 In the Matter of the A Trusts案[2025] CIGC (FSD) 16 中也得出了類似的結論，Doyle 法官指出，“英國公開司法的浪潮”正在迅速積聚，以至於可能成為一場“潛在的海嘯”，應該加以遏制。
Judgment reaffirms that Cayman courts can grant confidentiality orders in private trust cases
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has granted a trustee's application for anonymisation and confidentiality orders, and at the same time set out the principles governing the issue of such orders.
The court acknowledged that in some jurisdictions, including England and Wales, the move towards open justice has been quick. However, it also noted that the Cayman courts have tried to ensure that they legitimately treat proper privacy and confidentiality concerns in private trust cases as an appropriate exception to the principle of open justice.
The case in hand, In the Matter of the D, E, F, G and H Trusts, [2026] CIGC (FSD) 36, concerned an application by a trustee for anonymisation and related confidentiality orders in advance of proposed trust proceedings. The court agreed that open justice is a 'fundamental constitutional and common law principle', but asserted that it is not absolute and may be departed from where it is 'necessary or expedient in the interests of justice', according to s.7(10) Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009. Examples of cases where open justice may be departed from include anything involving the protection of private lives, the welfare of minors, and confidential financial or commercial information.
In particular, the court said, internal trust proceedings will often justify confidentiality orders where privacy interests are engaged and there is no countervailing public interest.
Such proceedings typically involve inherently private material, including the financial affairs of individuals, the structure and administration of trusts, and the identity and the status of beneficiaries, including minors. There may be legitimate concerns around privacy and even personal security that support the grant of confidentiality protections, especially in an offshore trust context, unless some wider public interest is being engaged.
The court set out three principles to guide judgments on confidentiality applications.
These are whether:
• the case falls within a recognised gateway for derogation from open justice
• the confidentiality measures sought are necessary and proportionate
• there exists any countervailing public interest sufficient to outweigh the privacy interests engaged
In the case at hand, the court was satisfied that the application concerned a private internal trust dispute, engaged significant privacy considerations, and raised no countervailing public interest. Confidentiality and anonymisation orders were therefore granted, including sealing of the court file, private hearings and anonymised publication of any judgments.
However, it said, confidentiality will be more difficult to justify where there is a countervailing public interest in transparency, such as in cases involving allegations of misconduct, regulatory or tax issues, or other matters of broader public importance.
'The judgement confirms that appropriate protections remain readily available in genuinely private internal trust proceedings', commented law firm Mourant.
• A similar conclusion was reached by the same court in 2025, in the case of In the Matter of the A Trusts, [2025] CIGC (FSD) 16, in which Doyle J remarked that 'the English tide of open justice' was building up at a fast rate to the point of becoming a 'potential tsunami' that should be checked.
Sources
• Mourant
• Walkers (April 2025)