April 23, 2025
An interesting judgment concerning the interpretation of the term “person aggrieved” in s.273 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. The appellant, Mr Stevanovich, contested the decision of the joint liquidators of Barrington, a BVI company, to admit a US$ 398 million claim submitted by a US Chapter 11 Trustee. The joint liquidators then commenced proceedings against Mr Stevanovich, who was a former director of Barrington, for fraudulent trading and misfeasance (“Proceedings”).
Mr Stevanovich argued that the admission of the claim was wrongful and sought to reverse it under s.273. The term “person aggrieved” is not explicitly defined in the Act, necessitating interpretation based on the Act’s structure, context, and relevant case law. The Board applied the Supreme Court decision in Brake v Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29, which limited standing to: (i) creditors affected by a trustee’s conduct; (ii) members/contributories affected by a trustee’s conduct; and (iii) persons whose rights or interests were “directly affected” by the exercise of powers peculiar to the insolvency regime.
The Privy Council held that determining who qualifies as a “person aggrieved” involves examining all relevant factors, including the applicant’s capacity and the availability of alternative avenues of challenge. Mr Stevanovich’s complaint about the admission of the US trustee’s claim was a power peculiar to the insolvency regime. However, he failed to demonstrate that his interests were “directly affected”. The existence of the Proceedings did not establish standing under s.273, as he could challenge the matters underpinning the admission of the Trustee’s proof in those proceedings. Consequently, Mr Stevanovich had no standing to challenge the liquidators’ decision or to invoke the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Alexander Cook KC acted for the joint liquidators and was instructed by Shane Donovan at Mourant and David Johnson and Eamon Khorsheed at PCB Byrne LLP.
Read the judgment.
