Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
What does the recent Buccament Bay Resort case tell us about when an English court will have jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company and what factors it will take into account when exercising its discretion?
Re Buccament Bay Resort; Re Harlequin Property (SVG)  EWHC 3130 (Ch),  All ER (D) 32 (Oct)
The Chancery Division dismissed the petitioners' application to have a winding up petition heard in England in respect of two foreign companies (BBL and Harlequin), which were part of a group that developed and operated luxury Caribbean resorts. The court ruled that, notwithstanding that a reasonably substantial connection with England had been satisfied, the English court had no jurisdiction for a winding up order in circumstances where, among other things, most of the companies' assets were mainly in a foreign jurisdiction, and where the order sought would prove ineffective.
BBL and Harlequin were both companies incorporated in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG). The petitioners (investors in the Buccament Bay resort development) sought to wind up the companies in England based on largely undisputed debts.
The arguments on jurisdictional connections included:
The English court has jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered company which is unable to pay its debts (Insolvency Act 1986, s 221(1) (IA 1986)).
Foreign companies are, for company law purposes, treated as unregistered companies. The three core requirements (as set out in the Re Real Estate Development case  BCLC 210) are:
In addition to the three requirements, the court will always consider whether there is a more appropriate jurisdiction (see paras –).
The High Court focused on the discretionary nature of IA 1986, s 221 which provides that 'any unregistered company may be wound up under this Act'. The judge emphasised the word ‘may’. Whether the power should be exercised in respect of a foreign company is a matter of discretion depending on the facts of the case. In a number of cases, judicial guidance has been given as to when the discretion should and when it should not be exercised in relation to foreign companies. It is clear and common ground that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction in respect of a foreign company where there is no connection whatever between the foreign company and this jurisdiction, other than the decision of the petitioning creditor (which would be present in every case) to present a winding-up petition in England.
There is a presumption that a company’s COMl is in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated. The court found that despite some uncertainty as to the exact nature of the respondents’ activities in England, the evidence came nowhere near rebutting the presumption. All that the petitioners had been able to establish was that the main shareholder and sole director was resident in England, that there was some administration activity here and that some sales to English residents were conducted here. As against that, there was undisputed evidence that the sole director and main shareholder spent a considerable part of his life administering the Harlequin group’s business in SVG with regular and frequent meetings with senior management and a variety of third parties. The court was swayed by his assertion that it would be impossible to administer the business from England.
In the present case, there was no justification at all for a winding up order. It was clear that all the assets (except for a claim against the auditors) were situated in SVG, and there was undisputed evidence that SVG had a perfectly adequate winding up process which was available to the petitioners and is a more appropriate forum.
There was undisputed evidence that an English liquidator would be likely to face considerable and possibly insuperable difficulties in gaining control of the company's assets (especially if his authority as liquidator was not recognised and/or other investors began winding up proceedings in SVG and/or there were difficulties because the employment of 320 employees might not be terminated by an unrecognised English winding up order).
The court could see no advantage in winding up proceedings in England, rather than in SVG. As Briggs J said in Re Rodenstock GmbH ( All ER (D) 62 (May)), the court will not act in vain. Applying settled principles, while the first core requirement (a reasonably substantial connection with England) was satisfied, as was the third, the second was not (no reasonable possibility had been shown of the petitioners deriving benefit from a winding up). Further, it was clearly a case in which SVG was by far the more appropriate forum.
Where a company’s COMI is in this country, it is highly likely that, by definition, the court will be satisfied that there is a substantial connection with this country, but otherwise the discretionary factors will be the same. In this case, even if the court had been satisfied that the COMl was in England, it would still have made no sense to make winding up orders in a case which was obviously much more suitable for the SVG courts.
Following the string of schemes of foreign companies pushing the boundaries on sufficient connection, this is a timely reminder that the English courts will not automatically assume jurisdiction even if a sufficient connection is proved and will assess all the evidence when exercising their discretion. The English courts will not step in if the courts where the company is incorporated have adequate insolvency laws.
It also highlights the difference between the requirements to prove sufficient connection and COMI—if the higher COMI test is proved, it is highly likely that, by definition, the court will also be satisfied that there is a substantial connection with this country, but the English court still retains a discretion whether to grant the relief sought.
If you are a LexisPSL Subscriber, click the links below for further information:
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Kathy Stones, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Restructuring & Insolvency team.
0330 161 1234