When a reasonably substantial connection just isn't enough

When a reasonably substantial connection just isn't enough

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?

Original news

Re Buccament Bay Resort; Re Harlequin Property (SVG) [2014] EWHC 3130 (Ch), [2014] 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.

How did the issue arise and what were the jurisdictional factors?

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:

England Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
all contracts signed in England by their sole director the governing law of the underlying contracts (for the sale of freehold land in Buccament Bay Resort, SVG) was the law of SVG
all monies payable under the investor contracts routed via another group company in England both companies were incorporated in SVG
SVG operated under the Commonwealth structure of law with the Privy Council as the last resort of appeal, therefore, the system and judicial approach would be the same key management

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Corporate Law image
Another one bites the dust: Beales in administration
Corporate Law |
2 min read
Restructuring and Insolvency image
No jurisdiction for bankruptcy court to stay possession claim (Re Roderick John Lynch)
Restructuring and Insolvency |
6 min read
Restructuring and Insolvency image
Setting aside a statutory demand—share sale guarantee liability (Harrling and Steen v Midgley and others)
Restructuring and Insolvency |
4 min read
Restructuring and Insolvency image
Scotland—challenging a liquidator’s decision—the proper approach of the court (Re West Larkin Limited (in liquidation) (No 2))
Restructuring and Insolvency |
5 min read
Latest Articles:
No jurisdiction for bankruptcy court to stay possession claim (Re Roderick John Lynch)
Restructuring and Insolvency |
6 min read
Setting aside a statutory demand—share sale guarantee liability (Harrling and Steen v Midgley and others)
Restructuring and Insolvency |
4 min read
Scotland—challenging a liquidator’s decision—the proper approach of the court (Re West Larkin Limited (in liquidation) (No 2))
Restructuring and Insolvency |
5 min read
Demystifying Chinese insolvencies—all roads lead to the Mainland
Restructuring and Insolvency |
6 min read

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login