Posts Tagged BVI
I reported earlier on the Aldi abuse of process principle: a party who intends to bring a subsequent action against existing parties or their privies must raise the issue with the court, which on case-management grounds may hold that all claims must be brought simultaneously.
In 2016 BVIHC 0059 (COM) Serena Chi Yang Hsueh et al v Equity Trustee ltd. et al Chivers J has now held that the principle applies in the British Virgin Islands. Harneys have the report here, and a big thank you to Kimberley Crabbe-Adams and Ian Mann for providing me with copy. Telling, at 94 is Chivers J’s conclusion (following review of authority) that while the specific Aldi requirement may not as such have been promulgated in BVI, there can be no doubt of the obligation of a litigant to put all their cards on the table, before the other party and the court, at an early stage. The CPR demand so, specifically as their overall objective (at 90, referring to CPR 1.1(1) is to deal with cases ‘justly’.
I have pondered before whether there ought not to be an Aldi rule in EU conflicts law, however one can see the difficulty particularly as in the EU context an Aldi principle might favour the actor sequitur forum rei rule to the detriment of special jurisdictional rules: not an outcome supported by the current rules.
The Irish High Court in Harley Medical Group: Textbook application of COMI following PIP implants liability
In Harley Medical Group, the Irish High Court has made a textbook application of the determination of jurisdiction under the EU’s Insolvency Regulation. The Court held in May, the case has only now come to my attention.
Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd has its registered office in the British Virgin Islands. It had registered in the Companies Registration Office (CRO) in Ireland as an external company with a branch established in the State pursuant to the European Communities (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1993. The sole shareholder sought winding up in Ireland. Liabilities arose from claims against Harley by 158 former patients in respect of cosmetic treatment they received. Many of those claims arise from breast implant operations using breast implants from PIP, a French registered company. The Company was informed by its insurers that its insurance cover does not extend to product liability claims for products sourced from a third party.
The patients opposed jurisdiction, seeking to have the case heard in the UK instead: lex concursus would then have been English law, which allegedly would have been more favourable on account of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010: this would allegedly give the claimants better rights against the insurer. As the High Court correctly held, however,
‘The perceived advantage to the Opposing Creditors of this Court declining jurisdiction to wind up the Company is articulated as follows in [ ] ’s second affidavit, where it is averred that –
“. . . the creditors believe their rights under UK legislation with regard to any relevant policies of insurance indemnifying or intended to indemnify the Company against claims such as those of the creditors will be stronger than under Irish law.”
The Court was referred to a UK statute entitled Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. That contention is immaterial to the Court’s function on this application and it would be inappropriate for the Court to express any view on it. (at 37)
The High Court swiftly rejected the notion that the Regulation does not apply because of the non-EU incorporation of the company: from the moment the company’s COMI – Centre of Main Interest is in the EU, the Regulation does apply. Neither does it matter that the company is part of a group of undertakings, and that a company within the group with which it was associated had been placed in administration in the UK: COMI, per Eurofood (notably, upon reference by the Irish Supreme Court), needs to be individually determined per corporation.
The Court subsequently reviewed the rebuttable presumption of COMI as being the place of incorporation (here: BVI). Per Interedil, this requires the court seized to review whether the Company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests is located in its territory, ! in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties. Both conditions were fulfilled:
On the condition of ‘actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests’ the High Court accepted the following indices:
- – The Company has never traded in any jurisdiction other than Ireland.
- – all surgical treatments had been carried out in Ireland, the operations having been performed by surgeons registered with the Irish Medical Council;
- – the Company was registered as a branch in Ireland and subsequently filed all of the statutory returns as was required by law.
- – All employees of the Company are located in Ireland.
- – The Company’s only place of business is at Dublin.
- – The Company’s address for correspondence has at all times been located in Ireland.
- – The Company is registered with the Irish Revenue Commissioners for VAT, and relevant national insurance payments.
- – The Company is not tax resident in any other jurisdiction.
- – The Company does not operate any bank account in any other jurisdiction other than Ireland;
- – The Company board meetings typically took place in Guernsey. However, in the last fourteen months, they have taken place either in London or in Dublin.
On the matter of ascertainability by third parties, that all of the Company’s activities have been conducted in Ireland since 1999 and that the administration of its interests has been continuously conducted in Ireland, has been readily ascertainable by third parties by conducting a search in the CRO and an inspection of the documents filed by the Company in the CRO in accordance with the law of Ireland.
Top marks, I’ld say.