Knowledge

On 15 April 2025, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered a historic judgment in Stevanovich v Richardson [2025] UKPC 18, a case that not only clarifies an important legal question in British Virgin Islands ("BVI") insolvency law, but also marks a significant moment for the Honourable Dame Janice Pereira. As a native of the Virgin Islands and the former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Dame Janice’s first judgment since her appointment to His Majesty’s Privy Council in August 2024 centres on the interpretation of a "person aggrieved" under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 (the "IA").

Section 273 of the IA states that "A person aggrieved by an act, omission or decision of an office holder may apply to the Court and the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the act, omission or decision of the office holder". The question of who has standing to hold liquidators to account in a liquidation of a BVI company is an important one.

In Stevanovich v Richardson, the Board ruled that a former director of a company, particularly one facing proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty, does not qualify as a "person aggrieved" in relation to the joint liquidators' decision to admit a creditor's claim in proof of debt. This is so, even in the circumstances of this case, where the company had only been restored, and brought proceedings against that director, as a direct result of the creditor advancing that claim.

In assessing the standing issue, the Board applied the Supreme Court decision in Brake v Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 (a bankruptcy case). Applying the principles of that case by analogy, it held that standing is limited to:

• creditors affected by a liquidator's conduct;
• members or contributories affected by a liquidator's conduct; and
• persons whose rights or interests have been "directly affected" by the exercise of powers peculiar to the insolvency regime

In the case at hand, the former director was denied standing because he could not demonstrate that his rights were "directly affected" by the joint liquidators’ admission of the claim. Although there were proceedings against him (which were factually connected to the proof of debt), the Board held that these did not in themselves establish standing. The former director retained the ability to challenge the claim within those proceedings, but not under section 273 of the IA.

This judgment contains a careful and authoritative review by Honourable Dame Janice Pereira and the Board of the circumstances in which a person can claim to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 273 of the IA, which are complex and fact-sensitive. A full analysis falls beyond the scope of this brief update, but the judgment will no doubt be analysed and cited as a leading authority in future cases on this question.

The full judgment is available here for your reference.