Key Facts
- •Inderjit Kaur Chhina appealed a British Virgin Islands (BVI) Court of Appeal decision dismissing her appeal for want of prosecution.
- •The BVI Court of Appeal held that Chhina did not have an appeal as of right to the Privy Council and that it was not an appropriate case for leave to appeal.
- •The appeal concerned ownership of shares in a BVI company, Firmingham Ltd, which owned property in London.
- •The original BVI Commercial Court judgment (1 October 2020) recognized the second respondent as the legal owner of the shares.
Legal Principles
Determining whether a decision is "final" for purposes of appeal to the Privy Council.
Section 3 of the Virgin Islands (Appeals to the Privy Council) Order 1967
The "application test" versus the "order test" for determining finality of decisions.
English case law (Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh, White v Brunton, Shubrook v Tufnell, Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council, Salaman v Warner)
Privy Council's deference to local courts on matters of procedure.
Privy Council case law (Zaid, Tampion v Anderson, Bergan v Evans, Boston v Lelievre)
Outcomes
The Privy Council upheld the BVI Court of Appeal's decision.
The Privy Council held that the BVI Court of Appeal correctly applied the "application test" to determine finality, in accordance with established BVI practice. Because the decision was not final under the application test, there was no appeal as of right. The Privy Council emphasized the importance of consistency and deference to local procedural rules.