British Virgin Islands: Wasted Costs Applied To BVI Duties On An Ex Parte Application

Last Updated: 28 June 2017
Article by Nicholas Burkill

The BVI Commercial Court has just provided guidance on wasted costs principles and their application to the duties of an applicant's legal practitioner on an ex parte application. This guidance was provided in a judgment delivered on 6 June 2017 in I U Chong aka Yao Yong & Anor v Greater Achieve Limited & Ors BVIHC (Com) 2015/0140.

The application for an order that the claimants' legal practitioners, Harney Westwood & Riegels ("Harneys") pay wasted costs arose out of the grant and subsequent discharge of an injunction in proceedings in which the Statement of Claim was subsequently struck out as disclosing no cause of action and for abuse of process.

The court concluded that in only one of the complaints advanced in support of the application was Harneys in breach of its duty to the court but that the causal link between that breach and the applicants' costs was not sufficiently strong; and accordingly the breach did not give rise to a wasted costs order. In reaching this conclusion the court reiterated legal practitioners' duties to the court and the court's jurisdiction to punish and compensate for breach of those duties.

The proceedings and the complaints

The proceedings were part of a wider dispute between the parties relating to Mingyuan Medicare Development Company Limited ("Mingyuan"), a Bermudan company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and operating in the healthcare sector.

On 23 November 2015 the claimants obtained ex parte relief from the BVI court in proceedings that had been started a few days earlier. By that injunction the first defendant was restrained from exercising any voting rights or passing any resolution in its capacity as a shareholder in Mingyuan and the seventh defendant was restrained from disposing of certain shares. That injunction was discharged on 15 January 2016 for material non disclosure. Harneys ceased to represent the claimants in February 2016. The claim against the second to seventh defendants was stayed by order dated 28 April 2016 after the claimants failed to comply with an interim costs order; and the Statement of Claim was struck out against the first defendant by order dated 26 June 2016 for not disclosing a cause of action and being an abuse of process. The claim against the eighth defendant, Mingyuan, was not pursued.

By an amended notice of application the first to seventh defendants sought a wasted costs order against Harneys based on six complaints:

  • Misleading the court on the ex parte application as to the financial means of the second claimant in relation to the cross-undertaking in damages;
  • Failing to explain to the court on the ex parte application the nature of proceedings in Bermuda, which was relevant to the court's decision on the application;
  • Failing to disclose a matter on the ex parte application relating to the auditors of Mingyuan not being able to verify the bank account of one of its subsidiaries because $66m was missing from the subsidiary of which the second claimant was an executive director;
  • Failing to inform the court on the ex parte application that the purpose of the Bermudan proceedings was to change the composition of Mingyuan's board in the light of the foregoing issue and the suspension of trading in Mingyuan's shares;
  • Failing to draw to the attention of the court on the ex parte application the effect of the first claimant's bankruptcy, which was that he had no ability to bring the claim without the consent of his trustee in bankruptcy and the approval of the Hong Kong court;
  • Failings in connection with the preparation of the Statement of Claim which was ultimately struck out.

The applicants did not allege that Harneys "deliberately sought to breach their duties to the court" but did complain that Harneys participated in an abuse of the court's process that could and should have been avoided had they sought proper instructions from the claimants, as was their duty on an ex parte application, and if they had given proper consideration to the documents they had obtained.

Wasted costs jurisdiction in the BVI

Costs incidental to all proceedings in the High Court are, subject to express statutory provisions and rules of court, in the discretion of the judge who "shall have full powers to determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid"1

There are two rules relating to wasted costs that were considered by the court in I U Chong aka Yao Yong & Anor v Greater Achieve Limited & Ors: ECSC CPR 64.8 (under which the application was brought) and 64.9. The difference between these rules was found by the court to be that wasted costs is defined in CPR 64.8(2)(a) to include costs incurred by a negligent act or omission as well as by an improper or unreasonable act or omission; and CPR 64.9 does not include a reference to negligence. The court found that these two rules provide separate bases for making costs orders and that CPR 64.8 is the rule that is focused on the legal practitioner's duties to the court.

The court also found that a wasted costs order for negligence lies within the inherent jurisdiction of the court, that jurisdiction in England having been elaborated on by the House of Lords in Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282.

The BVI test for a wasted costs order

The court found that there are two questions, conflating the English three part test, to be considered by the court in assessing whether or not to exercise its discretion to make a wasted costs order either under CPR 64.8 or the inherent jurisdiction of the court:

  • "First, has there been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of the legal practitioner?"
  • "Second, if so, did such conduct act or omission cause the applicant to incur costs that the court considers it unreasonable for the applicant to pay?"

The Court cited the following principles derived from the Privy Council in Harley v MacDonald [2001] UKPC 678 at paragraphs 55 and 57:

"A simple mistake or oversight or a mere error of judgment will not, of itself, be sufficiently serious ... " The conduct must amount to a serious dereliction of duty; there must be 'gross negligence'; "while a mere mistake or error of judgment is not generally sufficient, a gross neglect or inaccuracy ... might suffice. A more precise definition of the level of seriousness is not appropriate. But where negligence or incompetence is alleged the conduct must be put into its proper context." "The essential point is that it is not errors of judgment that attract the exercise of the jurisdiction, but errors of duty owed to the court."

The court followed the meaning of "improper", "unreasonable" and "negligent" identified by the Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, and in particular the "untechnical" meaning of negligence, being a "failure to act with the competence reasonably to be expected of ordinary members of the profession".

The court concluded that "A legal practitioner's failure to give full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application is an established basis for a Wasted Costs Order".2

BVI duties on ex parte application

The court approved the duty expressed by Gee3 and found it to rest on legal practitioners: "On an ex parte application, those acting for the applicant have a personal responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that there is full and frank disclosure to the court on the application"4 and found that duty to be a heavy one, extending "not only to material facts known to the applicant, but to additional facts that he would have known had he made proper inquiries". The applicant is under a duty "to present fairly the facts so disclosed".5

The applicant is required to identify to the court any relevant legal point, and must refer to any obvious answer to the claim or to an obvious defect in the cause of action. The applicant must identify defences which can reasonably be expected to be raised. They should be fairly summarised in the affidavit, outlined in the skeleton argument and specifically drawn to the attention of the court at the hearing. Merely setting out the relevant information in an exhibit is not enough.6

The court provided the following warning:

"What should be clear to legal practitioners acting for an intended ex parte injunction applicant is that they owe a duty to the court to a) probe their client diligently to seek to bring about full and frank disclosure by the client, b) push a client that is not forthcoming for material and information that is important to a fair and full understanding of the situation to which the intended injunction relates (and to consider withdrawing if it is not forthcoming without a sound explanation) and c) assess critically materials and information provided by the client and stand back to do a 'reality check' on information and conclusions provided by the client".7

Findings on the complaints

The court did not accept the complaints made against Harneys in the application.

  • It accepted uncontroverted evidence from Harneys that "it would not have made representations [at the ex parte hearing as to the second claimant's wealth] without proper instructions". By the date of the wasted costs hearing Harneys were no longer acting for the claimants and were presumably therefore unable to adduce more specific evidence without breaching privilege. In any event, however, the discharge of the injunction was not based on this matter and so there was no necessary causal connection between any breach of duty and the costs incurred by the applicants.
  • Justice Farara, who discharged the injunction, found that the failure to disclose correctly and fully the Bermuda proceedings was "part of 'egregious breaches of duty of full and frank disclosure on the part of the Claimants'".8 The court on the wasted costs application found however that "it is difficult to see what [evidence complained of as missing] could have added" to what was before the court and drawn to the court's attention.
  • Justice Farara had found that the failure to disclose the missing $66m from one of the companies of which the second claimant was an executive director was part of the Claimants' "egregious" conduct. Whilst the court on the wasted costs application concluded that Harneys' conduct "was wanting such as to open the possibility of a Wasted Costs Order" the court did not consider that the "extent of Harneys' neglect in relation to this alleged failing was of a magnitude to exercise the Court's discretion in favour of making a Wasted Costs Order". Further the court was concerned that the causal connection between the alleged failing and the costs incurred by the applicants was not sufficiently clear, and whether Justice Farara would not have granted the injunction in any event had he been made aware of the true position was also not sufficiently clear.
  • Justice Farara had not focused on the complaint that the purpose of the Bermudan proceedings was to change the composition of Mingyuan's board in the light of the foregoing issue and the suspension of trading in Mingyuan's shares. The court concluded that this complaint was insufficiently distinct from the second and third complaints. Accordingly, whilst the court found that if Harneys had appreciated the response of the defendants to the proceedings that was said to underlie this complaint, it would have been under a duty to disclose it to the court on the ex parte application, it was not negligent to have failed to identify the point.
  • The court determined that it was negligent of Harneys not to have informed the court on the ex parte hearing that the effect of the first claimant's bankruptcy was that he had no entitlement to sue. However, the court found that the causal link between that negligence and the applicants' costs was not sufficiently strong and accordingly the negligence did not give rise to a wasted costs order.
  • The court considered the defects in the Statement of Claim, both in the context of an argument that these gave rise to a duty to disclose them to the court on the ex parte application and an argument that the pursuit of doomed proceedings raises the wasted costs jurisdiction. One defect identified by the court was the failure to obtain permission to bring a double derivative claim: the court fund this to be "somewhat troubling" but did not find it to be conduct that crossed the line to open the possibility of a wasted costs order. The court was also "mindful that Harneys ceasing to represent the claimants in February 2016 meant that opportunities to remedy the defects may have been hampered before that time and certainly were lost after that time".

Conclusion

The court accordingly dismissed the application:

"While this Application is being dismissed, the Court is mindful that Harneys has a responsibility for the facts giving rise to the Application and the grounds upon which it was based, even though at the end of the day this Court has found that they fall somewhat short of leading this Court to make a Wasted Costs Order".9

After hearing submissions on the costs of the application, the court made no order as to costs. None of the duties identified by the court on ex parte applications are new; and it is not new that those duties to the court were identified as those of legal practitioners for applicants for ex parte relief. It is however unusual for those duties to be examined in the context of a wasted costs application. Whilst the court identified that wasted costs applications should only be made sparingly and only in the most egregious cases, the court's judgment contains no criticism of the fact that the wasted costs application was made. It is an important reiteration of legal practitioners' duties to the court and of the court's jurisdiction where those duties are breached.

Footnotes

1 Section 50(1) Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, incorporated into BVI law by section 7 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Territory of the Virgin Islands) Act.

2 Citing Ridehalgh at p 234D and Gee, Commercial Injunctions (6th ed) at 9-015 to 017

3 Supra at 9-015

4 At §75

5 At §76

6 At §§77-78

7 At §289

8 At §175

9 At §306

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions