Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Scraping by the Court rules

In QVT Fund V LP and ors v China Zenix Auto International Group Limited & ors, the BVI Court considered whether to grant time extensions for filing and exchanging witness statements pursuant to rule 26.8 of the Eastern Caribbean Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (CPR).

The 2nd to 4th Defendants (the Defendants) had not exchanged their witness statements by the deadline, and sought relief from sanctions and an extension of time to file the witness statements. The Plaintiffs sought to either strike out the Defendants’ Defence for failure to serve witness statements or in the alternative, certain “unless orders”. The Defendants’ reasons for the failure to exchange witness statement on time was that they were in the course of changing lawyers, their previous lawyers having terminated their retainer with the Defendants for the non-payment of fees. 

In granting the Defendants’ application, the Court was satisfied that the requirements under CPR 26.8(2) was met and that (i) the failure to comply was not intentional; (ii) the change of lawyers, while not a very good reason, “scrapes by” as a good explanation for the failure to exchange witness statements. What will constitute a good reason for an extension has to be viewed against all the circumstances not simply by reference to the question of whether all was done that could have been done; and (iii) the Defendants have generally complied with relevant orders.

Turning to CPR 26.8(3), the Court weighed the interests of the administration of justice for parties to be able to put their whole case and evidence before the Court and compliance with procedural timetables to prevent wasting of court resources. Having considered, inter alia, the effect on the Defendants if relief from sanctions and an extension was not granted, that the default was remedied in reasonable time and did not affect the trial date, the Court found it appropriate to grant relief from sanction and the extension of time to the Defendants.

 

Board meeting

Leave A Comment