The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has rejected an application by 51job, Inc. to delay a high-profile shareholder dispute trial set for next month.
Instead, Justice David Doyle reaffirmed a previously agreed schedule that allots 20 days for hearings beginning on 24 June.
The dispute arises under Section 238 of the Companies Act, which allows dissenting shareholders to seek a judicial determination of the fair value of their shares following a merger.
In this case, dissenters are challenging the valuation of their holdings in 51job, Inc., a Chinese human resources company previously listed on NASDAQ.
The financial difference between expert valuations is estimated at up to US$1.7 billion.
The company sought to postpone the trial, arguing that more time was needed to accommodate growing complexity and to allow a break between evidence and closing submissions.
Alternatives proposed included rescheduling the trial for later in 2025 or 2026, or extending the current trial by six additional days beyond the agreed schedule.
In a judgment delivered on 13 May, Justice Doyle dismissed the application, ruling that no material change in circumstances justified the delay.
He pointed to the June 2024 consent order – agreed by all parties – that confirmed the 20-day trial starting on 24 June.
“There had been no material developments that could not have reasonably been foreseen,” Justice Doyle stated.
He added that the existing trial timeline was “already generous” and that “discipline and focus” from the parties would ensure its sufficiency.
The judge also highlighted constitutional and procedural principles, citing the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and the Overriding Objective of the Grand Court Rules to manage cases efficiently and economically.
Justice Doyle noted that litigation is often “very difficult” and that the company’s assertion that the current schedule could not “easily” accommodate all evidence and argument did not justify disruption.
“Litigation is rarely easy,” he wrote.
The application was further criticised for its timing, coming nearly a year after the trial dates were agreed.
The dissenting shareholders, represented by multiple law firms, opposed the adjournment.
They argued it would result in “significant delay and cost” and compromise their constitutional property rights, which are at issue due to the compulsory share acquisition under the merger.
The judge also heard preliminary arguments on a separate application by the company to access documents from ten other Section 238 cases spanning the last decade, including trial transcripts, expert reports, and written submissions.
Justice Doyle expressed concern over how the request had been presented and deferred a final ruling on that matter.
The trial in the matter of 51job, Inc. is expected to begin on 24 June 2025 and run through 29 July 2025, with court not sitting on Fridays or Constitution Day.
The proceedings are expected to focus on determining the fair value of the dissenters’ shares at the time of the merger.
A costs order related to the failed adjournment request is pending, with written submissions due within 14 days of the judgment.
