Knowledge

The past court term in the BVI has produced judgments that clarify the position on a number of key issues for practitioners, including cross-border enforcement, the governing jurisdiction for succession under foreign wills, the test for "improper purpose" regarding directors' access to company documents, and liquidator neutrality.

We summarise the key cases and their implications below, with full briefings on each of the six judgments from the Privy Council and the BVI Court of Appeal.

Enforcement of a foreign judgment (Sergey Taruta v JSC VTB Bank VG 2024 CA 18)

This BVI Court of Appeal case focused on the recognition and enforcement in the BVI of a foreign judgment from Russia, and ultimately saw recognition of a US$30 million Russian judgment set aside due to unsafe analysis of foreign law and inadequate service.

The key points for practitioners are:

• cross-border enforcement: this case reinforces the high threshold for enforcing foreign default judgments in common law jurisdictions when service or notice is disputed;
• due diligence: judgment creditors must ensure robust service records and be prepared to produce qualified foreign law experts; and
• strategic consideration: even where a debtor has lost an appeal in the foreign jurisdiction, the original breach may still bar recognition if the appeal did not fairly cure the defect.

Read our full briefing here.

Succession under foreign wills (Al-Thani & Anor v Al-Thani & Ors [2024] UKPC 35)

In this Privy Council case, the Board of the Privy Council confirmed that BVI shares are movables and that succession under foreign wills is governed by the deceased's domicile.

This case concerns the legal framework governing the transmission of shares in companies registered in the BVI after the death of their owner - the central issue was whether such shares were to be considered immovable property under BVI law, which would mean their transmission would be subject to local laws.

The key points for practitioners are:

• the importance of understanding the intersection of local and international laws in estate matters and also the complexities inherent in cross-border estate issues, particularly for international business structures in jurisdictions like the BVI; and
• the case serves as a clear precedent, ensuring that foreign wills can remain effective without the need for additional local instruments, promoting legal certainty in the BVI's business environment.

Read our full briefing here.

Statutory demands and contractual compliance (Geminis Investors Ltd v Goods Technology Starting International Ltd [2025] ECSC J0130-1)

In this BVI Court of Appeal case, the court held that there was no genuine dispute on a statutory demand and reaffirmed the strict standards for fresh evidence and security for costs.

The case before the BVI Court of Appeal concerned an appeal by Geminis Investors Limited against Goods Technology Starting International Limited and G-Force International Co Ltd regarding a statutory demand and substantive proceedings related to nine short-term notes.

The appeal by Geminis Investors Limited was dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment that there was no substantial dispute regarding the debt owed.

The key points for practitioners are:

• the court emphasised that ambiguities in communications regarding defaults and settlements could lead to significant legal consequences; and
• the court ordered costs to the respondents, marking a decisive outcome in favour of the claimants and reinforcing the legal principles surrounding commercial debts and obligations.

Read our full briefing here.

Disclosure of records and improper purpose (Intimere Holdings Ltd & Anor v Katina Papanikolaou (BVIHCMAP2022/0031, 4 June 2025, Unreported))

This BVI Court of Appeal case considered whether a court-appointed director of two BVI companies was entitled to inspect company records, including unredacted engagement letters with legal counsel which revealed the identity of a third-party litigation funder who was paying the companies' legal bills in several court cases.

The companies opposed disclosure, arguing that the director was acting for an improper purpose i.e., to benefit the principal of a minority shareholder, whom they accused of leading a hostile campaign against the companies and their ultimate beneficial owner.

The key points for practitioners are:

• the appeal was dismissed with costs. The BVI Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that the director should have full access to the companies' documents, including the unredacted engagement letters; and
• this decision clarifies that the burden will be on a party alleging improper purpose to prove it, by reference to cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or past affiliation will not be sufficient to establish an improper purpose.

Read our full briefing here.

Standing in insolvency cases (Stevanovich v Richardson [2025] UKPC 18)

This Privy Council case focuses on the interpretation of a "person aggrieved" under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, 2003. The dispute focused on the liquidation of Barrington Capital Group Ltd in the BVI, and whether a former director of the company had legal standing to challenge the admission of a debt claim by a US Trustee under the BVI Insolvency Act, 2003.

The key points for practitioners are:

• this case holds broad implications for the understanding of standing in insolvency cases - it underscores the necessity for an applicant to demonstrate a legitimate interest directly affected by the liquidators' actions; and
•  this case illustrates the limitations imposed on who can challenge decisions made by liquidators, reinforcing that only those with a direct stake in the insolvency process should have the right to dispute such decisions.

Read our full briefing here.

Removal of liquidators and neutrality (Bybit Fintech Limited (in liquidation) - Jeongmin Hwang v Wesley Edwards & Barry Lynch (Joint Liquidators) (BVIHCOM2024/0303, 18 August 2025, Unreported))

In this case, the BVI Commercial Court reaffirmed the requirements to be met on an application to remove joint liquidators.

Bybit Fintech Limited, incorporated in the BVI in 2018, ran the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit - the business was later transferred to Bybit Seychelles, was struck off in 2021, and restored to the register, and put into liquidation in September 2024.

A creditor successfully applied for the removal of the liquidators, citing various failures and a conflict of interest. Giving judgment, the court criticised the liquidators for taking an adversarial stance, and for failures of transparency.

The key points for practitioners are:

• the court held that the grounds for removal were established as there were serious concerns about neutrality, asset protection, conflicts, and creditor confidence; and
• the court stressed that removal was in the best interests of creditors and the integrity of the liquidation, and was not based on any improper motive by the applicant creditor.

Read our full briefing here.