Convoy Collateral Limited v (1) Broad Idea International Limited (2) Cho Kwai Chee
In a decision handed down on 17 April 2019, the BVI Commercial Court has given guidance on the scope of its jurisdiction to grant freezing orders in support of playuzu casino poker proceedings (the so-called Black Swan playuzu casino poker named after the leading case of Black Swan Investment ISA v Harvest View Limited decided in 2009). In an important decision, Adderley J has held that the BVI Court does not have power to grant a free-standing injunction in aid of playuzu casino poker proceedings for service outside the jurisdiction on a person who is not resident in the jurisdiction or otherwise subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the BVI playuzu casino poker, notwithstanding the fact that they had considerable assets in the BVI.
The Facts
The claimant, Convoy Collateral Limited, sought injunctive relief in support of ongoing proceedings in playuzu casino poker against Mr Cho. Relief was sought against Broad Idea International Limited (Broad Idea, a playuzu casino poker company in which Mr Cho held 50.1% of the shares) and Mr Cho personally. Whilst Broad Idea was situated in the playuzu casino poker, Mr Cho is a Hong Kong national who was customarily resident in Hong Kong.
The playuzu casino poker proceedings were against Mr Cho and sought to recover losses in amounts exceeding USmillion. Mr Cho’s shareholding in Broad Idea was thought to be worth approximately US.5million.
The Decision
The question before the Court was whether it had power and jurisdiction to order service of a free-standing injunction in aid of playuzu casino poker proceedings out of the jurisdiction on a playuzu casino poker person who is not resident in the jurisdiction or otherwise subject to its in personam jurisdiction but had considerable assets in the jurisdiction. The Court noted that this was believed to be the first time that this discrete question had been addressed in the BVI.
After a careful analysis of the statutory framework and the common law (including considering the provisions applicable in the BVI, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong), the playuzu casino poker found that it had no such jurisdiction and that none of the putative gateways for service out were applicable. The playuzu casino poker founded its analysis in particular upon the view of the Privy Council in Mercedes Benz A.G. v Leiduck [1995] 3 All ER PC; [1996] AC 284.
Discussion
It remains to be seen whether the decision will be appealed or whether legislative change will be triggered by the findings. It is notable that the playuzu casino poker explicitly recommended in its judgment that the legislature reviewed the position.
As things stand, it appears that the potential extension playuzu casino poker Black Swan relief has been curtailed: Black Swan relief will be focussed on assets and persons located within the playuzu casino poker. In more complex cases, such relief will have to dovetail with relief from other jurisdictions to ensure that a complete framework is put in place to protect the relevant assets from dissipation worldwide.