Cayman Law Mediation is a new firm of mediators, established to help you resolve your dispute quickly and cost effectively, without the Courts, anywhere in the world.

We use our commercial savvy, outside the box thinking and common sense to search for a resolution.

Chris Narborough
Chris Narborough
Chris Narborough

Chris Narborough is a corporate/commercial attorney with nearly 30 years of experience, 25 of that being in the Cayman Islands. He has enjoyed working with fabulous clients over the years, from oil and mining companies, international car companies, aircraft maintenance companies; banks, trust companies; trading companies; insurance companies; shipping companies; lenders/borrowers; buyers/sellers; clients requiring personal holding companies, and everything in between.

Chris served as Managing Director of Truman Bodden & Co., Attorneys-at-Law and then Country Managing Partner of Higgs & Johnson Truman Bodden & Co which became Higgs & Johnson’s Cayman office, where he was senior partner until February 2014. He acted as managing director of Trulaw Corporate Services Ltd., which became H&J Corporate Services (Cayman) Ltd, and was a director there until early 2014, when he formed "Cayman Law"

Mr. Narborough was born, educated, qualified as a Solicitor, trained and practised in the UK, then became the manager of law offices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Washington DC, USA.

He is President of the Cayman Islands Company Managers’ Association, former Vice President, and a Council Member, of the Cayman Islands Law Society;member of the Cayman Islands Directors Association, a former member of the Board of the Information and Communications Technology Authority in the Cayman Islands and he is a Notary Public.

Chris has owned and controlled a number of businesses in the Cayman Islands as well as serving as Trustee and on the board of directors of client companies, hedge funds and other businesses and organisations.

He helped create and develop Cayman Enterprise City from concept to inception, playing a unique role in writing both the agreement with Government and the laws on which it is based. Chris also serves on the Board of Cayman Enterprise City.

Nigel Stone
Team Member
Nigel Stone

Nigel is an accredited mediator, and has represented clients in more than 20 mediations with up to a dozen parties, frequently in major construction disputes involving millions of dollars.

He has a background in civil and criminal litigation. He has worked on cases where the amount in dispute has ranged down from $9.2 billion (Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers v Maan Al Sanea & Ors—also known as AHAB v Saad). Prior to that he worked at New Zealand’s largest law firm, and before then appeared in court as sole counsel for the Crown in more than 30 jury trials, as well as various appeals.

Nigel holds a master’s degree in corporate and commercial law with first class honours. He attended St John’s College at the University of Cambridge where he obtained a research degree in law (the equivalent of a DPhil). He has published various articles in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, and coedited the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law.

Nigel qualified as a New Zealand solicitor in 2004. He moved from the UK to the Cayman Islands in 2015.

John Delaney QC
Nigel Stone
John Delaney QC

A former Attorney-General of The Bahamas and one of Her Majesty’s Queens Counsel, John’s areas of practice are financial services law and regulation, corporate governance, business restructuring & insolvency, and commercial litigation.

He has also been advisor in several major acquisitions and mergers within The Bahamas, and also in acquisitions by or mergers with regional entities.

Highly valued by industry to navigate complexities and pitfalls to achieve strategic business objectives, John has held a range of non-executive directorships of financial institutions and has served as member and chair of audit committees. He currently serves as a non-executive director and audit committee member of RBC Financial (Caribbean) Limited, the regional parent of the Royal Bank of Canada’s interests in the jurisdictions comprising the Caribbean region. John has a history of national contribution and previously served on the Road Traffic Authority, National Insurance Board, Bahamas Financial Services Board, and has chaired The Bahamas Trade Commission.

He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Institute of Directors, INSOL and STEP.

Peter Dengate Thrush
Peter Dengate Thrush
Peter Dengate Thrush

Peter is a leading New Zealand barrister sole (practicing from chambers, in the English tradition) specializing in intellectual and industrial property, information technology, Internet and competition causes. He is the former Board Chair of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which coordinates the naming system of the Internet. He is in his 37th year of legal practice, the past 22 years in sole practice at the independent bar. He is a New Zealand and Australian Registered Patent Attorney and a past foreign associate member of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, the International Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He is admitted to practice in Victoria, Australia. He also practices as a mediator and arbitrator.

Arbitration and Mediation

Peter has appeared for clients in a number of mediations in intellectual property cases, reaching successful outcomes for his clients. He has been appointed an Arbitrator under the NZ Arbitration Act 1996 on several occasions, including in a software development dispute involving the NZ government as a party, and a long-running copyright franchise dispute.

The Bar

Peter has appeared in New Zealand Courts at most levels, including the Privy Council (London), and in specialist tribunals such as the Taxation Review Authority and the Intellectual Property Office.

He is an expert in injunctions, including those obtained urgently, and ex parte. His cases include some of New Zealand’s leading authorities in their field, which reflect novel substantive and procedural developments in New Zealand law. Many involve complex scientific or technological facts. He has been instructed to appear by the Crown.

He is one of the few experts in New Zealand on “Internet law” as a specialist topic, including the application of existing law to the Internet, and the development of new laws to deal with, for example, the liability of ISPs for defamation or other content. He served on ICANN’s Working Group A, which developed the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) for clashes between generic domain names and trade marks. He also served on InternetNZ’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee, which crafted a dispute resolution service for .nz domain names. (See http://dnc.org.nz/story/30231-29-1.html )

He is a supporter of the Victoria University Alumni Association, and the Victoria Law School in general, participating in so-called “celebrity debates” and originating and leading a partnership with InternetNZ to fund the position of a Fellow to research cyber law at Victoria.

Judicial appointments

In March 2008 Peter was appointed Vice-Chair of the NZ Electricity Rulings Panel by the Governor-General of New Zealand, on advice from the Minister of Energy and Resources. The Rulings Panel is a quasi-judicial body set up under the Electricity Governance Regulations 2003 dealing with disputes between electricity wholesalers and retailers under New Zealand’s Code. Peter became Chairman in 2011 and is currently appointed until 2018.

In 2010 Peter was apppointed by the New Zealand Minister of Justice to a 5-year term as a member of the Copyright Tribunal. This body deals with copyright infringement on the Internet through peer-to-peer file sharing. In 2014 he was appointed Vice-Chairman and is currently appointed until 2020.

Background

Peter joined New Zealand national patent attorney firm Baldwin Son & Carey (now Baldwins) in 1980, joining the partnership in 1985. He practiced in the trademark department for four years, then the patent department, serving as head of the patent department from 1987 to March 1994. He was leader of the bio-practice group.

In 1986 he founded the in-house law firm at Baldwin Son & Carey, focusing on litigation, and was the senior litigation partner.

He pioneered the introduction of modern management practices in the firm and was responsible for the design and implementation of its state-of-the-art technology platform.

He was a founding editor of Baldwin’s Newsletter, and was a regular speaker at home and abroad on intellectual property topics.

Peter founded and headed the first bio-practice group at Baldwin’s, responsible for the drafting, prosecution and exploitation of patents relating to bio-technological inventions. He regularly attended the conferences of the Association of Biotechnology Companies, speaking to its Annual Meeting in San Diego, in 1992, and joining the Patent Committee of the organisation. The Patent Committee was consulted by the US National Institute of Health, and Dr. Craig Venter on his patents on expression sequence tags, arising from the Human Genome Project, which provoked international debate.

Peter was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal (a New Zealand government judicial body, formed to review historic grievances by the Maori -New Zealand’s indigenous people) to write a report on New Zealand’s laws affecting indigenous plants and animals, including claims to intellectual property rights to them, which was published in May 1995.

He assisted the New Zealand Royal Commission into Genetic Modification with intellectual property aspects of its Report. He is cited in the 1995 Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Experts.

He moved to the independent bar in 1995.

Jonathan Dingle
Nigel Stone
Jonathan Dingle
Mediator since

1996

Specialist areas

Construction, insurance, costs, international, training

Biography

Jonathan Dingle is a leading barrister, mediator and internationally experienced arbitrator complimented as “inspiring”, “remarkable” and “incisive” in his work over three decades in many fields. At the Bar, he specialises in complex cases, often with a national or international dimension. He is also an international Arbitrator. He is regarded as something of an institution in complex construction, negligence, and costs dispute resolution. His more than 1,000 ADR cases have included various disputes and issues, from the trivial to tragic multiple deaths. His feedback from parties is “legendary”. In a recent case, he was credited by all parties in the resolution of a very long running, difficult, and tragic matter. He is supported by a full time dispute resolution assistant who eases the path to arbitration and mediation.

Insurance Mediator of the Year in 2009/2010 he was again so honoured for 2016/17 at the PI awards in November 2016.

As a barrister, he practices from 218 Strand in London enjoying a strong portfolio of work. He has a deserved reputation in complex, regulatory, government, and military law. Called as a barrister of the Middle Temple in 1986 following a distinguished career at sea in the Royal Navy working as a Commander with NATO navies, he later served on operational duties in the Gulf War before becoming a Judge Advocate.As such he dealt with complex and challenging cases – working alone and as part of a team. In the MOD, he briefed ministers and heads of state, and ran a substantial range of sensitive projects, both lead by and leading senior civil servants. He was fully deep vetted to the highest levels and retains the extended security clearance in his present part-time judicial appointment.He entered private bar practice in 1996. He has built a reputation as a leading adviser, negotiator, mediator, and practitioner in complex and difficult cases – both in the UK and overseas. He is the author of several textbooks and numerous chapters.

As a mediator, his work for more than a decade led to his appointment as Honorary Secretary of the United Kingdom’s Civil Mediation Council in 2003, a post which he held for eight years. He played a major role in influencing judges, practitioners and stakeholders in previously intractable disputes.He has led more than 250 mediation and arbitration training courses in Europe and internationally which have been universally praised. In doing so, he has already created a generation of mediators worldwide under the facilitative model. He has helped established associations worldwide. He is currently undertaking pro bono work establishing reconciliation processes in schools in the Caribbean where bullying, abuse and other issues are rife.

“Jonathan Dingle is widely regarded as the epitome of a modern international mediator who brings a relaxed style and a razor-sharp mind to every mediation, helping participants resolve disputes that seemed intractable”

He is also a member of a number of advisory groups and panels, has chaired inquiries and standards boards, and holds a part-time Judicial Appointment in the United Kingdom dealing with highly sensitive matters. As an arbitrator, Jonathan chaired or coordinated a number of panels for the Chartered Institute in London for some years. Jonathan’s style is relatively informal but should not be mistaken for an absence of a fine seaman like eye for detail, or a thorough grounding in procedure on which he is widely consulted. His arbitrations as a sole appointment generally proceed faster than the average. His awards are carefully constructed and clear to read – and generally quickly available.

Jonathan’s interests include his three grandsons, a Morgan, exploring on a motorcycle, theatre and film, running long distance events - and surfing. He is also a founding Trustee of the Jeff Astle Foundation for brain injury in sport.

Background/Education/Professional

The Perse School, Cambridge to 1975 Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth 1976 Kings College, London to 1979 Royal Naval College, Greenwich to 1980 Inns of Court School of Law 1985/1986 Middle Temple called 1986 Commander, Royal Navy (retired 1996) Seven warships, MOD, Whitehall, Judge Advocate, operations Barrister and International Mediator in independent practice Founder and Honorary Secretary of the Civil Mediation Council.

Negotiation

A back and forth discussion that attempts to reach an agreement.

Mediation

Mediation is a modern and widely used dispute resolution process where those involved are encouraged and empowered to work out their own solution with the assistance of a skilled, trained, and accredited neutral third person - the mediator. It is private, confidential, and informal allowing settlements to be agreed which neither a court nor an arbitrator might have the power or authority to impose. It is normally a voluntary process, entered into under a set of basic rules, usually at much less than 10% of the cost of continuing in litigation or arbitration. Mediation does not require anything like the preparation needed for trial or an arbitration, and it can be arranged at a few days notice at any convenient location. Worldwide it is proven to enable a solution to be reached on the day in 85% of cases. The outcome may be formalised by a court order made by consent or by a written contract. The mediator does not impose or recommend a particular solution, nor provide legal advice: instead the process uses careful listening, questioning, and analysis to enable a facilitated agreement to be reached. In some variants, mediators may offer an evaluation of the options raised but the most widely used form of mediation requires the mediator to be careful not to express any opinion: rather to tease out the underlying mutual interests and allow a solution to be found. For more information - download or order a copy of 'Practical Mediation'at this link.

Arbitration

Arbitration is, in essence, a private trial. The process results in a determination ('the award') by the arbitral tribunal which may consist of one or three arbitrators. The award may only be appealed in limited circumstances and is normally legally binding and enforceable. Generally, awards can be enforced by local and overseas courts under defined procedures. Its process is quite formal and shares many of the features of litigation, although it is usually more flexible. Originally preferred to litigation on the grounds of costs and speed, as well as offering the chance for litigating parties to choose their own venue and tribunal, it has become more expensive in recent years as complexity, challenges to rules, and the stakes for parties get higher. Some former users now prefer adjudication, which is a less formal version of arbitration while many others prefer mediation. Arbitration takes place under an agreed set of rules, usually established before a dispute arises under the terms of the contract. The arbitrator will follow the rules and the relevant legal code to deliver an award which, as closely as possible, reflects what a court might have determined had it heard the same evidence and applied the same legal principles. Arbitrators also make awards dealing with the costs of the dispute. For more information - follow this link.

Litigation

Litigation generally refers to the process by which a dispute comes to be determined by a court set up by a state to hear the relevant type of claim, case, action, or application. It is formal, and has sanctions and orders that are enforceable by the state through the court system. There are highly developed and formal sets of rules, as well as precedents that may bind or influence judge (and sometimes a jury) that decide the case. Judgments are generally susceptible to appeal, sometimes to two further levels, and even at the lowest tier will take time to emerge. Few jurisdictions can get to trial within 18 months in anything but the most simple and low value of claims. Legal costs may be controlled by the courts but are not always recoverable in full from the losing party - even if they have the resources to meet the costs. Generally, litigants find that they end up paying part of their own legal bill even if they win - and all of it, and their opponent's if they lose. Most outcomes in court are binary - one party wins, the other loses. Very few lawyers will guarantee any outcome at trial and judges (and juries) may be influenced by strong witnesses or experts in a way that may seem unfair to the losing party. Litigation carries high risks and high costs, even in the best of cases. Sometimes, however, there is little option and injunctions or fraud cases may require litigation. For more information - follow this link .

Negotiation

A back and forth discussion that attempts to reach an agreement.

Mediation

Mediation is a modern and widely used dispute resolution process where those involved are encouraged and empowered to work out their own solution with the assistance of a skilled, trained, and accredited neutral third person - the mediator. It is private, confidential, and informal allowing settlements to be agreed which neither a court nor an arbitrator might have the power or authority to impose. It is normally a voluntary process, entered into under a set of basic rules, usually at much less than 10% of the cost of continuing in litigation or arbitration. Mediation does not require anything like the preparation needed for trial or an arbitration, and it can be arranged at a few days notice at any convenient location. Worldwide it is proven to enable a solution to be reached on the day in 85% of cases. The outcome may be formalised by a court order made by consent or by a written contract. The mediator does not impose or recommend a particular solution, nor provide legal advice: instead the process uses careful listening, questioning, and analysis to enable a facilitated agreement to be reached. In some variants, mediators may offer an evaluation of the options raised but the most widely used form of mediation requires the mediator to be careful not to express any opinion: rather to tease out the underlying mutual interests and allow a solution to be found. For more information - download or order a copy of 'Practical Mediation'at this link.

Arbitration

Arbitration is, in essence, a private trial. The process results in a determination ('the award') by the arbitral tribunal which may consist of one or three arbitrators. The award may only be appealed in limited circumstances and is normally legally binding and enforceable. Generally, awards can be enforced by local and overseas courts under defined procedures. Its process is quite formal and shares many of the features of litigation, although it is usually more flexible. Originally preferred to litigation on the grounds of costs and speed, as well as offering the chance for litigating parties to choose their own venue and tribunal, it has become more expensive in recent years as complexity, challenges to rules, and the stakes for parties get higher. Some former users now prefer adjudication, which is a less formal version of arbitration while many others prefer mediation. Arbitration takes place under an agreed set of rules, usually established before a dispute arises under the terms of the contract. The arbitrator will follow the rules and the relevant legal code to deliver an award which, as closely as possible, reflects what a court might have determined had it heard the same evidence and applied the same legal principles. Arbitrators also make awards dealing with the costs of the dispute. For more information - follow this link.

Litigation

Litigation generally refers to the process by which a dispute comes to be determined by a court set up by a state to hear the relevant type of claim, case, action, or application. It is formal, and has sanctions and orders that are enforceable by the state through the court system. There are highly developed and formal sets of rules, as well as precedents that may bind or influence judge (and sometimes a jury) that decide the case. Judgments are generally susceptible to appeal, sometimes to two further levels, and even at the lowest tier will take time to emerge. Few jurisdictions can get to trial within 18 months in anything but the most simple and low value of claims. Legal costs may be controlled by the courts but are not always recoverable in full from the losing party - even if they have the resources to meet the costs. Generally, litigants find that they end up paying part of their own legal bill even if they win - and all of it, and their opponent's if they lose. Most outcomes in court are binary - one party wins, the other loses. Very few lawyers will guarantee any outcome at trial and judges (and juries) may be influenced by strong witnesses or experts in a way that may seem unfair to the losing party. Litigation carries high risks and high costs, even in the best of cases. Sometimes, however, there is little option and injunctions or fraud cases may require litigation. For more information - follow this link .

Negotiation

A back and forth discussion that attempts to reach an agreement.

Mediation

Mediation is a modern and widely used dispute resolution process where those involved are encouraged and empowered to work out their own solution with the assistance of a skilled, trained, and accredited neutral third person - the mediator. It is private, confidential, and informal allowing settlements to be agreed which neither a court nor an arbitrator might have the power or authority to impose. It is normally a voluntary process, entered into under a set of basic rules, usually at much less than 10% of the cost of continuing in litigation or arbitration. Mediation does not require anything like the preparation needed for trial or an arbitration, and it can be arranged at a few days notice at any convenient location. Worldwide it is proven to enable a solution to be reached on the day in 85% of cases. The outcome may be formalised by a court order made by consent or by a written contract. The mediator does not impose or recommend a particular solution, nor provide legal advice: instead the process uses careful listening, questioning, and analysis to enable a facilitated agreement to be reached. In some variants, mediators may offer an evaluation of the options raised but the most widely used form of mediation requires the mediator to be careful not to express any opinion: rather to tease out the underlying mutual interests and allow a solution to be found. For more information - download or order a copy of 'Practical Mediation'at this link.

Arbitration

Arbitration is, in essence, a private trial. The process results in a determination ('the award') by the arbitral tribunal which may consist of one or three arbitrators. The award may only be appealed in limited circumstances and is normally legally binding and enforceable. Generally, awards can be enforced by local and overseas courts under defined procedures. Its process is quite formal and shares many of the features of litigation, although it is usually more flexible. Originally preferred to litigation on the grounds of costs and speed, as well as offering the chance for litigating parties to choose their own venue and tribunal, it has become more expensive in recent years as complexity, challenges to rules, and the stakes for parties get higher. Some former users now prefer adjudication, which is a less formal version of arbitration while many others prefer mediation. Arbitration takes place under an agreed set of rules, usually established before a dispute arises under the terms of the contract. The arbitrator will follow the rules and the relevant legal code to deliver an award which, as closely as possible, reflects what a court might have determined had it heard the same evidence and applied the same legal principles. Arbitrators also make awards dealing with the costs of the dispute. For more information - follow this link.

Litigation

Litigation generally refers to the process by which a dispute comes to be determined by a court set up by a state to hear the relevant type of claim, case, action, or application. It is formal, and has sanctions and orders that are enforceable by the state through the court system. There are highly developed and formal sets of rules, as well as precedents that may bind or influence judge (and sometimes a jury) that decide the case. Judgments are generally susceptible to appeal, sometimes to two further levels, and even at the lowest tier will take time to emerge. Few jurisdictions can get to trial within 18 months in anything but the most simple and low value of claims. Legal costs may be controlled by the courts but are not always recoverable in full from the losing party - even if they have the resources to meet the costs. Generally, litigants find that they end up paying part of their own legal bill even if they win - and all of it, and their opponent's if they lose. Most outcomes in court are binary - one party wins, the other loses. Very few lawyers will guarantee any outcome at trial and judges (and juries) may be influenced by strong witnesses or experts in a way that may seem unfair to the losing party. Litigation carries high risks and high costs, even in the best of cases. Sometimes, however, there is little option and injunctions or fraud cases may require litigation. For more information - follow this link .

  •  {{li.Content}}
THE MEDIATION FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

The latest UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE STATISTICS from cases in England and Wales show that only between 3.0% and 3.5% of all cases filed in court actually went to trial. Assuming rational choices on the part of litigants, trials are very rarely in the parties’ best interests.

The latest CEDR SURVEY results describe an aggregate settlement rate at mediations in the UK at around 86%.

CAYMAN LAW MEDIATION AGREEMENT 2017


Our standard mediation agreement can be viewed here.