Two amendments to the rules of civil procedure in the BVI have recently become effective.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 came into effect on 1 February 2013. The rules make two changes to the existing Civil Procedure Rules (CPR):
- Rule 7.3(5) of the CPR is amended to provide that a claim form may be served out of the jurisdiction if a claim is made to enforce any judgment or arbitral award which was made by a foreign court or tribunal and is amenable to be enforced at common law.
- Rule 61 is amended and restated to change the rules governing appeals by way of case stated.
The first of these changes will be of greater interest to overseas legal practitioners.
Comment
The revised Rule 7.3(5) represents the third incarnation of that subsection. In its original form, its scope only included judgments and arbitral awards made within the BVI. This was subsequently broadened, but until February 2014 the amended subsection only extended to judgments and arbitral awards which were either (a) made within the jurisdiction, or (b) made by a foreign court or tribunal and able to be registered in the High Court pursuant to Rule 72.
Rule 72 provides for the registrations of judgments of foreign courts and tribunals which can be registered under an “enactment” for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. In the BVI, this includes a limited number of judgments from Commonwealth courts, and arbitration awards emanating from seats in states and territories to which the New York Convention[1] applies. It does not, however, include judgments from the courts of many states in which the BVI Business Company is a widely used corporate vehicle (such as China and Russia, for instance – even though arbitral awards from such countries could be registered).
There was no obvious rationale for this limitation: if a judgment was liable to be enforced at common law applying principles of comity, but could not be registered procedurally, it is anomalous that the holder of such a judgment should be comparatively disadvantaged by a procedural restriction.
The change is therefore to be welcomed. As the world’s most popular offshore corporate vehicle, the BVI Business Company is widely used in commercial transactions, and international commercial litigators have in recent years become increasingly familiar with the advantages offered by the BVI Commercial Court. The amendment will increase the circumstances in which the BVI courts’ jurisdiction will be available to litigants, and thus increase the availability of BVI legal remedies.
BVI Civil Procedure Update
Two amendments to the rules of civil procedure in the BVI have recently become effective.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 came into effect on 1 February 2013. The rules make two changes to the existing Civil Procedure Rules (CPR):
- Rule 7.3(5) of the CPR is amended to provide that a claim form may be served out of the jurisdiction if a claim is made to enforce any judgment or arbitral award which was made by a foreign court or tribunal and is amenable to be enforced at common law.
- Rule 61 is amended and restated to change the rules governing appeals by way of case stated.
The first of these changes will be of greater interest to overseas legal practitioners.
Comment
The revised Rule 7.3(5) represents the third incarnation of that subsection. In its original form, its scope only included judgments and arbitral awards made within the BVI. This was subsequently broadened, but until February 2014 the amended subsection only extended to judgments and arbitral awards which were either (a) made within the jurisdiction, or (b) made by a foreign court or tribunal and able to be registered in the High Court pursuant to Rule 72.
Rule 72 provides for the registrations of judgments of foreign courts and tribunals which can be registered under an “enactment” for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. In the BVI, this includes a limited number of judgments from Commonwealth courts, and arbitration awards emanating from seats in states and territories to which the New York Convention[1] applies. It does not, however, include judgments from the courts of many states in which the BVI Business Company is a widely used corporate vehicle (such as China and Russia, for instance – even though arbitral awards from such countries could be registered).
There was no obvious rationale for this limitation: if a judgment was liable to be enforced at common law applying principles of comity, but could not be registered procedurally, it is anomalous that the holder of such a judgment should be comparatively disadvantaged by a procedural restriction.
The change is therefore to be welcomed. As the world’s most popular offshore corporate vehicle, the BVI Business Company is widely used in commercial transactions, and international commercial litigators have in recent years become increasingly familiar with the advantages offered by the BVI Commercial Court. The amendment will increase the circumstances in which the BVI courts’ jurisdiction will be available to litigants, and thus increase the availability of BVI legal remedies.
BVI Civil Procedure Update
Two amendments to the rules of civil procedure in the BVI have recently become effective.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 came into effect on 1 February 2013. The rules make two changes to the existing Civil Procedure Rules (CPR):
- Rule 7.3(5) of the CPR is amended to provide that a claim form may be served out of the jurisdiction if a claim is made to enforce any judgment or arbitral award which was made by a foreign court or tribunal and is amenable to be enforced at common law.
- Rule 61 is amended and restated to change the rules governing appeals by way of case stated.
The first of these changes will be of greater interest to overseas legal practitioners.
Comment
The revised Rule 7.3(5) represents the third incarnation of that subsection. In its original form, its scope only included judgments and arbitral awards made within the BVI. This was subsequently broadened, but until February 2014 the amended subsection only extended to judgments and arbitral awards which were either (a) made within the jurisdiction, or (b) made by a foreign court or tribunal and able to be registered in the High Court pursuant to Rule 72.
Rule 72 provides for the registrations of judgments of foreign courts and tribunals which can be registered under an “enactment” for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. In the BVI, this includes a limited number of judgments from Commonwealth courts, and arbitration awards emanating from seats in states and territories to which the New York Convention[1] applies. It does not, however, include judgments from the courts of many states in which the BVI Business Company is a widely used corporate vehicle (such as China and Russia, for instance – even though arbitral awards from such countries could be registered).
There was no obvious rationale for this limitation: if a judgment was liable to be enforced at common law applying principles of comity, but could not be registered procedurally, it is anomalous that the holder of such a judgment should be comparatively disadvantaged by a procedural restriction.
The change is therefore to be welcomed. As the world’s most popular offshore corporate vehicle, the BVI Business Company is widely used in commercial transactions, and international commercial litigators have in recent years become increasingly familiar with the advantages offered by the BVI Commercial Court. The amendment will increase the circumstances in which the BVI courts’ jurisdiction will be available to litigants, and thus increase the availability of BVI legal remedies.
By William Hare, partner
+1 284 494 1890
