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

BVI: Norwich Pharmacal relief should be made on notice to the respondent

The BVI Commercial Court has recently ruled that applications for Norwich Pharmacal relief should, as a general rule, be made on notice to the respondent subsequent to the granting of any seal and gagging order made to preserve the confidentiality of such an application. This follows the Practice Notice (No.4 of 2016 in the Commercial Division) issued in August 2016 which provides that for any matter that is to be sealed the applicant should first make the application for the seal (and gag, if necessary) and then subsequently make the substantive application if and when the seal has been granted.

In a short judgment given in AAA v TTT, the Honourable Justice Jack was not persuaded that he should grant both a seal and gagging order and a Norwich Pharmacal order at the same ex parte hearing, despite recognising that Norwich Pharmacal relief was required on an urgent basis.

Despite Practice Notice No. 4 of 2016, there has been a practice in the BVI to seek Norwich Pharmacal orders at the initial ex parte hearing, alongside the application for a seal and gagging order. Such an approach was justified on the basis that the respondent would be given an opportunity to contest the grant of the Norwich Pharmacal order before complying with the disclosure obligations. Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to identify examples of this practice because of the confidential nature of the applications, but such an approach was adopted by the BVI Commercial Court in P v Y Ltd (A Registered Agent), which is no longer under seal.

In AAA v TTT, Justice Jack said that such an approach should only be adopted by the court where there were “special circumstances” to justify it. He took into account when coming to this decision the fact that respondents should be given an opportunity before any order is made to contest not only the making of the Norwich Pharmacal order but also the scope of the order sought. He noted that the practice of granting such orders before the respondent had an opportunity to express any concerns as to the order sought immediately put the respondent on the back foot.

It remains to be seen what “special circumstances” might justify the granting of a Norwich Pharmacal order ex parte. In AAA v TTT it was not enough that the application was recognised as urgent by Jack J because he was able to abridge time for the inter partes hearing, which was listed 3 days later. However, it appears the court has not completely closed the door to granting ex parte Norwich Pharmacal orders if satisfied that the application cannot be delayed by even a few additional days.

BVI: Norwich Pharmacal relief should be made on notice to the respondent

Leave A Comment