+44 (0)20 7797 8600




Stuart Ritchie QC

The Privy Council judgment in Nilon Ltd and another v Royal Westminster Investments SA and others [2015] UKPC 2 handed down today is important in two respects. First, it clarifies the scope and ambit of the Court’s statutory powers to rectify a company’s register of members (s. 43 of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004; s. 125 of the Companies Act 2006). Secondly, provides a helpful and concise statement of the law both as to the "necessary and proper party” gateway for service out of the jurisdiction and the proper approach towards issues of appropriate forum.

The case

"If foreigners incorporate companies in the BVI they must expect to have to come to the BVI to litigate disputes going to the membership and administration of such companies”. This sweeping statement by the BVI Court of Appeal raised the spectre of shareholders of BVI companies being dragged before the BVI Courts to respond to claims in which the underlying facts have nothing at all to do with the BVI. The present dispute was just such a case. It related to an agreement made in England between individuals to operate a commercial venture through one of the BVI’s 700,000+ holding companies, and a dispute as to who under the agreement were to be the shareholders.

The Claimants sought to have their alleged (but disputed) shareholdings recognised by bringing a claim to rectify the register of members of the company, Nilon, and to join the existing shareholder, Mr Varma, as a necessary and proper party to that rectification claim. Throughout, Mr. Varma’s contention was that the BVI was the wrong forum for the contractual dispute about the venture to take place. Mr Varma succeeded before the Judge in setting aside initial permission to serve him out of the jurisdiction, and Nilon had the claim struck out. However, the Court of Appeal in BVI reversed that decision, holding that rectification proceedings were a suitable vehicle for the hearing of the underlying contractual dispute and that BVI was clearly the appropriate forum for such proceedings.

The Privy Council held that rectification proceedings could not be used to determine questions of beneficial interests in shares, finding that the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Hoicrest Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 414 on which the Respondents and BVI Court of Appeal had placed much reliance was wrongly decided. Although that finding was determinative of the appeal in favour of Mr Varma and Nilon, the Privy Council went on to consider the Court of Appeal’s approach to appropriate forum given that it raised a point of general principle. Before the matter reached the Privy Council the BVI had introduced new civil procedure rules with a new "gateway” allowing the BVI Court to assert jurisdiction in any claim that relates to the ownership of a BVI company, subject to the Court being satisfied BVI is the appropriate forum. The Privy Council made it clear that the BVI Court of Appeal’s approach was wrong. The fact that Nilon is a BVI company was not a factor that outweighed the many factors pointing away from BVI as the appropriate forum such as where the agreement was made and the location of the parties and witnesses.

The case has important implications for the shareholders of the 700,000+ BVI holding companies who could not have expected to face claims in the BVI Court about ownership of shares of the company, where the underlying facts have nothing to do with the BVI.

Stuart Ritchie QC was instructed in the Privy Council with Richard Snowden QC by PCB Litigation LLP. 

Click here for a link to the judgment.

Posted: 21.01.2015 at 12:05
Tags:  Cases  Commercial Law
Share this page
Print page

Cookies help us deliver our services. By continuing to browse this website, you agree to our use of cookies. OK