ARTICLE
7 March 2024

Splitting The Costs: The BVI Court Retains A Discretion To Order Costs At The End Of The Liability Phase Of A Split Trial (Podcast)

H
Harneys

Contributor

Harneys is a full-service offshore law firm offering expert legal advice on the laws of jurisdictions including the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and more. Established in 1960, the firm has grown to 11 global locations with over 180 lawyers, serving top law firms, financial institutions, investment funds, and high-net-worth individuals. Harneys provides comprehensive legal support across transactional, contentious, and private client matters, often in collaboration with Harneys Fiduciary, which delivers corporate and wealth management services. Known for its role in shaping offshore jurisprudence, the firm also advises on legislative developments and excels in handling complex cross-border transactions and disputes.

On 17 January 2024, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Lau Man Sang, James et al v King Bun Limited et al affirming the lower courtâs discretionary...
British Virgin Islands Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On 17 January 2024, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Lau Man Sang, James et al v King Bun Limited et al affirming the lower courtâs discretionary power to award costs following a split trial to determine liability. In upholding the costs order of Wallbank J, the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no need to wait until the issues of relief and quantum are decided.

By way of background to the appeal, the 1st to 6th respondents, in their capacity as minority shareholders, commenced derivative proceedings against the appellants. At a case management hearing, Wallbank J ordered that the issue of liability was to be determined at a split trial and that the issues of relief and quantum were to be stood over for the direction of the trial judge.

Subsequent to that decision, Wallbank J decided the liability issue in the respondents favour and awarded them their costs (the Costs Order). The appellant appealed the Costs Order contending that the CPR prevented the court from making an order at the conclusion of the trial on liability thus the learned judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellantsâ position, clarifying that a split trial falls within the ambit of CPR 69B.12 (now CPR 70.12). Consequently, the court retains discretion to award costs following a trial on liability and is therefore not confined to wait until the completion of the quantum and relief stage to award costs.

The court also reasoned that complex commercial disputes can span the course of many years, therefore it would be incorrect and illogical to limit a judge to wait until the determination of the entire proceedings before awarding costs. In the words of the court âsuch a proposition runs contrary to the ethos of the CPR and the overriding objectiveâ.

The position of the court is consistent with its overriding objective to provide litigants with timely, effective and efficient access to justice.

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.

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