Cayman Firm Argues That It Is Unlawful For Immigration Authorities To Compel It To Recruit & Train A Caymanian
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
A local business recovery and insolvency firm, Chris Johnson Associates Ltd, has launched a legal appeal in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, dated December 4, 2025, arguing that the decisions of the Work Permit Board and Immigration Appeals Tribunal were erroneous in law, unreasonable and / or a breach of natural justice. Specifically, the company seeks to quash a specific condition imposed on the work permit of an employee, Bria Louise Bain, which stated: “The work permit is non-extendable and non-renewable. A Caymanian must be recruited and trained to replace this worker.” The case highlights tensions between protecting Caymanian employment opportunities and businesses’ rights to hire and retain skilled workers under Cayman’s complex immigration rules.
Based on the claim, the company has seven employees, four of whom are Caymanian and two of whom have permanent residency.
On November 15, 2024, the company applied for a work permit to employ Ms Bain as an insolvency administrator. The application explained that the insolvency administrator required experience in a similar position and would need to be able (among other things) to set up and progress casework, including maintaining regulatory and statutory records, adhering to statutory deadlines, preparing insolvency documents for review, and managing insolvency filings to the General Registrar and Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. The application recorded that Ms Bain had the requisite experience and had obtained a distinction in the level 2 accountancy qualification (on top of a degree).
The application explained that the role had been advertised on JobsCayman but that no applications had been received from Caymanians, persons married to Caymanians or Permanent Residents with the right to work.
On March 17, 2025, the Work Permit Board granted Ms Bain a permit authorising her to work for the company as an insolvency administrator until November 19, 2025. The permit was stated to be subject to two specific conditions and five standard conditions.
The specific conditions were expressed as follows:
(1) This work permit has been approved in accordance with section 66(1) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2022 Revision). The maximum period that a worker may be allowed to reside continuously in the Cayman Islands is nine years. After such period of continuous residence a work permit will not be granted or renewed for the worker until the worker has ceased to hold a work permit for not less than one year after the worker has left the Islands. Please note, that any person who has been and is legally and ordinarily resident within the Islands for a continuous period of at least eight years may apply in the prescribed form and manner to the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board or the Director for permission for himself and his dependants if any, to reside permanently in the Islands.
(2) This work permit is non-extendable and non-renewable. A Caymanian must be recruited and trained to replace this worker.
On March 24, 2025, the company appealed against specific condition (2) to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal.
On April 28, 2025, the immigration authorities explained their position as follows:
… the Board, in exercising its discretion will from time to time apply the ‘nonrenewable’ and/or ‘non-extendable’ condition to a work permit, as a means to fostering local employment opportunities. In determining whether this condition should be applied, the Board’s considerations include:
• The employer’s efforts to recruit and hire Caymanians,
• The role’s classification (whether skilled or unskilled),
• Compliance with local employment policies
The Board’s approach in such matters is founded on its duty and responsibility under the Law to protect local interests, in particular of Caymanians.
On July 1, 2025, the company submitted grounds of appeal, one of which was that it is unlawful to compel the company to recruit and train a Caymanian.
The company argued that the effect of the condition (if valid) would be to make it a criminal offence for the company to fail to recruit and train a Caymanian to replace Ms Bain.
The company says this is unlawful because it falls outside the meaning of “condition” in section 63(1) of the Immigration (Transition) Act.
The company added:
Properly interpreted, section 63(1) empowers the Board to impose restrictions on the worker that are reasonably necessary to make it acceptable for that person to work. It does not empower the Board to impose collateral requirements on employers that are unconnected to the worker’s employment during the period for which the permit has been granted.
(2) Second, this part of the impugned condition was unreasonable. On the face of the condition, the [company] would commit an offence even if (a) it was not possible for the [company] to recruit a Caymanian replacement for Ms Bain despite taking all reasonable steps to do so, or (b) the [company] reasonably decided that it had no business need for an insolvency administrator in the period following the expiry of Ms Bain’s work permit.
The company now seeks the following court orders:
** The decision of the Work Permit Board dated March 12, 2025, and the decision of the IAT dated November 7, 2025, were erroneous in law, unreasonable and/or a breach of natural justice.
**The second specific condition imposed on the work permit dated March 12, 2025, is quashed.
This appeal may test the boundaries of discretion in work permit decisions and may set precedents for how immigration authorities balance local labour protections with business needs in the Cayman Islands’ finance-heavy economy.
