OFFSHORE CASE DIGEST: - Conyers Dill & Pearman

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDSin England applied. This decision has far reaching implicationsfor the British Virgin Islands because section 11 of the EasternCaribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) Act andPractice Direction are identical to the corresponding provisionin the BVI which means that the English Insolvency Rules willapply to challenges to winding up orders in BVI as well as inconnection with bringing claims in the liquidation.AprilBVI – S. 11 EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURTACT – RECEPTION PROVISIONS – EXTENT AND SCOPEOF THE APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW TO BVI CASESVeda Doyle v Agnes DeaneThis appeal concerned the construction of section 11 of theWest Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Grenada)(the Supreme Court Act) a provision which for the mostpart duplicated in the Supreme Court Acts of the other eight(8) Eastern Caribbean Territories. The Court held that theEnglish law intended to be imported by section 11(1) of theSupreme Court Act is the procedural law administered in theHigh Court of Justice in England and not English substantivelaw, nor English procedural law which is adjectival and purelyancillary to English substantive law. The wording of section11(1) indicates that the focus on the importation of any law,rule or practice from England is in respect of the exercise ofthe jurisdiction as distinct from the importation of English lawso as to give jurisdiction. Panacom International Inc. v SunsetInvestments Ltd. and Another (1994) 47 WIR 139 followed;Dominica Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank vMavis Williams Commonwealth of Dominica Civil AppealNo. 20 of 2005 (delivered 29 th January 2007, unreported)distinguished. This decision has injected much needed clarityinto the interpretation of section 11 which hereintobefore wassaid to either constitute the common law of England and notStatute or the entire laws of England including statute. Thisdecision has clearly said that it is neither. In the LearnedJudges’ views “the notion that all Member States are subject tothe importation of English substantive law by virtue of section11 would leave much to be desired in any sovereign State notto mention the state of uncertainty as to what laws a citizenof the State may be subject at any given point in time andwithout regard to its own parliament which is charged with themaking of laws for the State as it may deem necessary for thatState’s good governance. Section 11 certainly could not havebeen intended to have this effect...the focus on the importationof any law, rule or practice is in respect of the exercise of thejurisdiction, as distinct from the importation of English lawso as to give jurisdiction.”BVI HIGH COURTDecemberCOMPANIES – BVI – S. 31 BCA – UNOPPOSEDSUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION – DEALINGSBETWEEN COMPANY AND THIRD PARTIESPotential Might Group Limited v GST InternationalManagement Ltd (Commercial Division) BVI December2011The Claimant applied for summary judgment of its amendedstatement of claim which sought declarations that a subscriptionagreement entered into between it and GST International wasbinding, that the resolution of the Board which Potential reliedon making its investment is valid and that the Claimant holdsthree million shares in GST. The claim and the application wereundefended. The Court held that an application for summaryjudgment should not be treated as if it were an application fordefault judgment. Even if the application is unopposed thediscretion presented by CPR rule 15.2(b) means that the Courtmust be satisfied that there is no real prospect of a successfuldefence being raised to the claim being made. In the courseof the hearing the court was required to construe section 31 ofthe Business Compnaies Act 2004, which deals with dealingsbetween companies and other persons. The Court held thatconyersdill.com • 12