ARTICLE
4 March 2016

Forum Non Conveniens | Recent BVI Commercial Court Guidance

W
Walkers

Contributor

We are a leading international law and professional services firm providing legal, corporate and fiduciary services to global corporations, financial institutions, capital market participants and investment fund managers. With a global presence spanning the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, we advise on the laws of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Ireland and Jersey. With over sixty years of looking at the world through the same commercial lens as our clients means we deliver focused, clear, precise advice to get the deal done. Clients trust us to help them make good business decisions, create commercially sound products and strategies, resolve disputes and cement deals that are profitable. From offices across geographies, we deliver business-critical advice and service in the same time zones as our clients, covering asset management, investment funds, corporate, M&A, dispute resolution, finance, insurance, fintech, private capital and trusts, regulatory and more
BVI Commercial Court provides guidance on the place of incorporation as a factor when deciding a "forum non conveniens" application.
British Virgin Islands Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Walkers are most popular:
  • within Accounting and Audit, Immigration and Insurance topic(s)

BVI Commercial Court provides guidance on the place of incorporation as a factor when deciding a "forum non conveniens" application.
 
Walkers has recently acted for Applicants which successfully challenged forum in favour of the Russian courts. The Claimants unsuccessfully relied on the parties' jurisdiction of incorporation as a factor determining the appropriate forum for their claim.
 
The claim was a derivative action brought under Russian law on behalf of a Russian company which sought damages following alleged breaches of Russian corporate legislation.  The four Applicants were companies incorporated in the BVI and of the other Defendants, one was a company incorporated in Cyprus, one was a company incorporated in Russia, and one was a Russian national. 
 
It was argued by the Claimants that the facts and circumstances of the claim were truly international and it could therefore not be said that Russia was clearly the more appropriate jurisdiction for the resolution of the dispute. The Claimants argued that the fact that four of the Defendants were incorporated in the BVI was a deciding factor.  The Applicants in turn argued that the only connection between the claim and the BVI was the place of incorporation of some, but not all, of the Defendants.  Justice Bannister QC went on to hold that in circumstances where the claim involved alleged breaches of Russian legislation and the alleged individual wrongdoers were Russian, Russia was clearly the appropriate forum for the determination of the claim.  The Court held that the mere fact that some of the Defendants were companies incorporated in the BVI was not sufficient to displace this conclusion.
 
Partner Oliver Clifton and associates Grant Carroll and Matthew Neal based in Walkers' BVI office acted in this matter

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More