On January 21 2015 the Privy Council handed down its decision in Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments SA ( UKPC 2), clarifying the power of the courts to rectify the share register of a BVI company under Section 43(1)(a) of the Business Companies Act 2004.
The facts were quite complex, but in essence revolved around an oral agreement which was entered into between Mr Varma on the one hand and several members of the Mahtani family on the other. There was some dispute as to the terms of that oral agreement, but the Mahtani family alleged that Varma had agreed to incorporate a company (Nilon Limited) in the British Virgin Islands and procure that shares were issued to members of the Mahtani family. The Mahtani family members paid money (which they said were subscription moneys and Varma claimed were loans) to Nilon Limited and received interim payments back (which they said were dividends and Varma claimed were interest payments), but no shares were in fact ever issued to the Mahtani family members. They brought claims against:
- Varma for breach of contract; and
- Nilon Limited for rectification of the share register to show that they were holders of the shares which they claimed had been agreed in the oral contract.
The issue for the Privy Council to decide was whether the Mahtani family members had a "good arguable case" against Nilon Limited for rectification of the share register. If they did not, then the claim against Nilon would need to be struck out and the claim against Varma would also fail because Nilon was the "anchor defendant" in the British Virgin Islands on which the claim against Varma relied (Varma was not resident in the British Virgin Islands, so the BVI courts would not otherwise have had jurisdiction over him).
The claim of the Mahtani family against Nilon relied heavily on the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Hoicrest Ltd ( 1 WLR 414). At first instance Justice Bannister ruled that Re Hoicrest was incorrectly decided and struck out the claim. However, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal reversed his decision, holding that Re Hoicrest was good law. The parties then appealed to the Privy Council and the decision was handed down by Lord Collins.
Collins agreed with Bannister and reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Re Hoicrest was anomalous in that every other decision in common law legal history has held that there is no right to rectify the share register in such circumstances. Accordingly, the only claim which the Mahtani family had was for alleged breach of the oral contract and that was a claim which would need to be brought in the English courts, not the BVI courts.
Although this was sufficient to dispose of the appeal, Collins went on to add some obiter dictum comments in relation to the doctrine of forum non conveniens generally. Collins was critical of comments made by the appeal court that because the underlying subject matter of the dispute was shares in a BVI company, this meant that "the BVI was clearly the appropriate forum for trial as a preliminary issue of the questions arising between the members and alleged members of Nilon". Collins disagreed, confirming that the primary issue here was the validity of the contract and the question of which court was the most appropriate forum should be viewed as a matter of contract rather than company law. Given Collins' status as editor of the leading textbook Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, those comments will attract great weight.
For further information on this topic please contact Ian Mann or Colin Riegels at Harney Westwood & Riegels by telephone (+852 3195 7200) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The Harneys website can be accessed at www.harneys.com.
This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.