Ryan Hawthorne

Senior Associate (Litigation)

Specialises in Litigation

(441) 295 7444

rhawthorne@td.bm

Whatever type of litigation issue a client brings into Trott & Duncan there is someone at every level who can cater to you, and who has the depth of experience to do it well.

Ryan is a Senior Attorney specialising in civil and commercial litigation. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2008 and in Bermuda in 2017.

Ryan’s practices all aspects of litigation including constitutional challenges and judicial review, commercial litigation, corporate insolvency, employment, injunctions, equitable remedies, civil fraud and asset recovery. Ryan regularly appears as sole counsel in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in Bermuda.

Ryan has appeared in over 50 reported cases in the last 5 years. Examples of significant cases include:

Constitutional and judicial review

Corporation of Hamilton v The Governor and The Attorney General [2022] CA (Bda) 6 Civ and [2023] CA (Bda) 1 Civ – appeared for the Governor and the Attorney General in the Court of Appeal and recently in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Dr. Ewart Brown v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Deputy Governor and the Attorney General [judgment pending] –appeared for the former Premier of Bermuda challenging the constitutionality of an oversight group comprised of the respondents directing a criminal investigation.

Commission of Inquiry into Historic Land Losses in Bermuda [2025] CA (Bda) 2 Civ; [2024] CA (Bda) 6 Civ and [2024] CA (Bda) 28 Civ – appeared for the Commission of Inquiry in the Court of Appeal on 4 judicial review applications.

Brewster v the Premier [2021] SC (Bda) 45 Civ and [2021] SC (Bda) 57 Civ – represented the Premier and Minister of Health against a constitutional challenge to the Covid-19 regulations. The legal issues included the proper role of expert witnesses, the correct test for an injunction on a constitutional motion and the proportionality test in constitutional motions.

Bermuda Prison Officers’ Association v Minister of National Security [2020] SC (Bda) Civ – represented the BPOA in the case involving the proper jurisdiction of the Labour Disputes Tribunal and challenging the removal of the prison officers’ contractual right to medical care and attention.

Tucker v Board of Education [2020] CA (Bda) 12 Civ –represented the Board of Education in a challenge to the Board’s recommendation for Commissioner of Education.

Commercial litigation

The Attorney General v Carlos Vicente and AAA International Limited [2024] SC (Bda) 30 Civ –appeared for AAA International Limited to discharge a restraint order. This is the only reported decision in Bermuda on the application of the Proceeds of Crime (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1998.

Re Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited [2024] CA (Bda) 7 Civ and [2023] CA (Bda) 7 Civ – instructed for a number of the dissenter shareholders in s.106 (fair value) proceedings. There are two cases: (1) an application to strike out fair value appraisal claims by parties that had acquired shares with the knowledge that the company would shortly be amalgamated; and (2) the scope of the joint interest privilege enjoyed by the shareholders and former shareholders over legal advice obtained by the company. Ryan is instructed in the appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council listed for 5-6 March 2025.

Griffin Line General Trading Ltd v Templar Capital Limited [2023] SC (Bda) 24 Civ – appeared for Templar Capital Limited in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in relation varying a worldwide freezing order, fortification of the undertaking in damages and security for costs.

Corbin Erisa Opportunity Fund Limited & ors v Argo Group International Holdings Inc [2024] SC (Bda) 69 Civ – represents the dissenting shareholders in s.106 (fair value) proceedings and resisted a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Privy Council proceedings in Jardine.

Ryan completed his pupillage at Devereux Chambers in London, where he secured tenancy and practiced for eight years. Ryan relocated to Bermuda to join Trott & Duncan in August 2016. His principal areas of practice were commercial litigation, taxation and employment law and injunctions, civil fraud and international commercial arbitration. Prior to his pupillage, Ryan was a lecturer at the London School of Economics and King’s College, London specialising in all areas of private law, including contract, tort, restitution, land, equity and trusts and employment.

Education

St. John’s College, Oxford
BPP Law School, London

Publications

Author, The Employment Practitioner’s Guide to Taxation (3rd edition, Bloomsbury Publishing)
Editor, Cousins, The Law of Mortgages (3rd edition, Sweet & Maxwell)
Editor, Bean on Injunctions (10th edition, Sweet & Maxwell)

Notable Cases

Corporation of Hamilton v Attorney General and Governor of Bermuda [2022] CA (Bda) Civ 6

Delroy Duncan KC and Ryan Hawthorne were instructed by the Attorney General and Governor of Bermuda in the Court of Appeal. The Corporation of Hamilton was represented by Sir. Jeffrey Jowell KCMG KC. The appeal involved a number of significant constitutional issues such as: (1) the enforcement of section 1 of the Constitution; (2) the scope of protection of the law within section 1 of the Constitution; (3) the significance of the rule of law when applying the Constitution; (4) the scope of the right to freedom of expression and whether it incorporates the right to vote in a municipal election; and (5) the scope of the deprivation of property provisions in section 13 of the Constitution.

View Judgment

Albert Brewster and Others vs The Premier of Bermuda SC (Bda) 45

Application for an interim injunction restraining the implementation of COVID 19 mandatory quarantine regulations for unvaccinated residents on the ground that it infringes the Applicants’ fundamental rights under the Constitution; test to be applied in relation to the grant of interim injunction involving constitutional rights; role and obligations of an expert witness in court proceedings.

View Judgment

Bermuda Prison Officers Association vs Labour Dispute Tribunal and Minister of National Security

Representation of Bermuda Prison Officers against the Government of Bermuda concerning the validity of a tribunal decision taking away their GEHI medical contributions. Constitutional rights of employees and their legitimate expectation to retain their GEHI benefit.

View Judgment

Latest Judgments

Ryan has appeared in over 50 reported cases in the last 5 years. Examples of significant cases include:

Williams and another v Stableford and The Attorney General

Representation of lawyer and police officer who commenced proceedings for malicious prosecution against a police inspector- police inspector applied to strike out claim for malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause- whether pleaded allegations of malice and dishonesty disclose no reasonable cause of action and are vexatious and an abuse of process-whether the pleaded claims seek to avoid immunity afforded to witnesses and are vexatious and an abuse of process-whether the Attorney General is properly named as a party to the proceedings.

View Judgment →

The Attorney General v Carlos Vicente and AAA International Limited

This is an application by the Second Defendant, AAA International Limited (“AAAIL”) and AAA Risk Solutions Limited (“AAARSL” / the “Second Applicant”)1 to discharge or vary the restraint order made by Hargun CJ dated 1 February 2022 (the “Restraint Order”) in favor of the Attorney General’s Ex Parte Notice of Originating Motion dated 28 January 2022 (the “ex parte application”).

View Judgment →

Amalgamation Agreement Between JMH Investment Limited and JMH Bermuda Limited and Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited

Representation of shareholders seeking appraisal of fair value of their shares under section106 (6) of the Companies Act 1981- Discovery of documents in the possession of the companies- Whether documents of subsidiary within the possession custody or power of the parent company - whether legally enforceable right to obtain inspection of another’s documents existed - existence of arrangement or understanding whereby the parent company had a right to inspect the documents of another company established. Scope of privilege - joint interest privilege - relationship between company and shareholder - date on which hostile litigation within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.

View Judgment →

Corbin Erisa Opportunity Fund Limited & ors v Argo Group International Holdings

Representation of shareholders seeking appraisal of fair value of their shares under section 106 (6) of the Companies Act 1981; whether to grant a stay on case management grounds; the company applied for a stay pending the decision in unrelated Privy Council proceedings of similar legal issues; distinguishing cases involving separate sets of proceedings where the parties and factual and legal issues are substantially the same.

View Judgment →

Piper and Davis v The Premier and Commission of Inquiry

The Court of Appeal considered: (a) whether the terms of reference were ultra vires because of their breadth; (b) the test for whether a misdirection is material; (c) whether Commissions of Inquiry had an implied power to limit the scope of inquiry; (d) whether a misdirection can give rise to a claim for damages in judicial review proceedings.

View Judgment →

Piper and others v The Premier and Commission of Inquiry

This was a case management hearing before a full Court of Appeal in the Commission of Inquiry litigation but raised important points of law and procedure. The Court of Appeal considered: (a) whether leave is required to appeal against a decision refusing leave to bring judicial review proceedings; (b) the principles applicable to protective costs orders and waiver of security and Court of Appeal fees; (c) if leave to bring judicial review proceedings is granted on appeal whether the Court of Appeal can determined the judicial review application.

View Judgment →

Junos, Piper and Moulder v The Premier and Commission of Inquiry

The appeal involved a number of significant legal and procedural issues. It is the first case in Bermuda to consider when the Court of Appeal can reopen a previous final determination of an appeal. The Court of Appeal also considered: (a) the proper principles to be applied when a decision to deny leave to bring judicial review proceedings is based on a lack of promptness; (b) when a public interest litigant should be granted standing to bring judicial review proceedings; and (c) the meaning of ultra vires in the context of a failure to act rather than exceeding powers to act.

View Judgment →

CI2 Aviation Bermuda Limited v Permanent Arbitration Tribunal [2022] SC (Bda) 26 Civ

Delroy Duncan KC and Ryan Hawthorne were instructed by the Bermuda Public Service Union (representing the former employees of CI2) to intervene in these judicial review proceedings, which were an appeal against a decision of the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal in relation to its interpretation of section 23 of the Employment Act 2000 (the Act), namely whether severance pay is payable to an employee where he is offered “re-employment by the employer”.

View Judgment →

Active Equity Holdings Ltd & 4 Ors v The Registrar of Companies [2022] SC (Bda) 64 Civ (31 August 2022)

Delroy Duncan KC and Ryan Hawthorne were instructed by the Registrar of Companies. The case involved judicial review proceedings against the decision of the Registrar to register certificates of cancellation and issue certificates of deposit in relation to limited and exempted partnerships under the Limited Partnerships Act 1883 (LPA) and the Exempted Partnerships Act 1992 (EPA). The Judgment considers the interplay between statutory interpretation and public law.

View Judgment →

Corporation of Hamilton v Attorney General and Governor of Bermuda [2022] CA (Bda) Civ 6

View Judgment →

What Ryan thinks

On working at Trott & Duncan

Trott & Duncan operates very much like barristers’ chambers do in the UK. Each litigation attorney has their own caseload but has access to other experts for their opinion but ultimately, our cases are our own responsibility. Trott and Duncan is the only firm in which attorneys can be led by Queen’s Counsel on a regular basis dealing with the leading cases in the jurisdiction. We’re therefore able to develop as lawyers and I haven’t observed that level of flexibility in other firms. I enjoy the working environment here. I’m happy to be at work and happy to do what I do.

What sets Trott & Duncan apart?

Whatever type of litigation issue a client brings into Trott & Duncan there is someone at every level who can cater to you, and who has the depth of experience to do it well. Having such wide-ranging expertise within the firm is critical and provides every lawyer with invaluable support and guidance.