Contested Points Of Foreign Law In The Winding-Up Context: Grand Court Provides Guidance

• Published date: 05 August 2026
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring, Insolvency/Bankruptcy, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Court Procedure
• Law Firm: Appleby
• Author: Harriet Ter-Berg, Will Porter and William Spence

We are pleased to share our latest article examining the decision in China Export & Credit Insurance Corp v Hyalroute Communication Group Ltd. ¹. In this case, Hon. Justice Jalil Asif KC provides important guidance on how the Court will approach a creditor's winding up petition where the alleged dispute turns on complex issues of foreign law here, in the context of PRC insurance law. Our article explores the Court's analysis and highlights the practical lessons that can be drawn for creditors and practitioners dealing with cross-border disputes.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several cases from common law jurisdictions have considered the treatment of foreign law issues in the context of contested winding up petitions.

There is a standard fact-pattern: a putative creditor seeks to wind up a company on the basis of a debt arising from a contract governed by foreign law. The debtor company disputes the debt and contends that the winding up proceedings are an inappropriate forum for the resolution of foreign law issues, which are treated as disputes of fact.² When the debtor company resists the making of a winding up order, the question arises: should the court inquire into the merits of the foreign law dispute and, if so, how involved should that inquiry be?

There has been a range of judicial responses to this question. In the English case of Glocin Ltd v Bancibo SE, ICC Judge Barber held that the existence of a substantial disagreement between experts on material issues going to liability under the laws of the Czech Republic was “of itself” a reason why the matter was “entirely unsuitable for disposal by way of [winding up] petition”.³

Conversely, in Re Primus Investments Fund L.P., the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made a winding up order following an in-depth analysis of the strengths of competing expert opinions on Hong Kong law. Parker J rejected the submission that winding up proceedings were unsuitable for the assessment of expert evidence on foreign law, or that the inability to cross-examine the experts precluded the Grand Court from assessing the merits of the points of contention expressed in their written opinions.⁴

It is against the backdrop of these diverging judicial approaches in the two jurisdictions that China Export & Credit Insurance Corp v Hyalroute Communication Group Ltd falls to be considered. The issue was whether the Petitioner had standing to pursue a winding up petition in reliance upon a debt based on three guarantee...