Lea Lilly Perry and another v Lopag Trust Reg and another No 2 (Cayman Islands)
[2023] UKPC 16
Sancus Financial Holdings Ltd and others v Holm and another (British Virgin Islands)
10 November 2022
[2022] UKPC 41
Privy Council
Two courts agreed on the facts of a business dispute. The Privy Council usually doesn't review such decisions unless there's a very good reason. There wasn't a good reason here, so the Privy Council agreed with the lower courts' decision.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against concurrent findings of fact by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands) and the trial judge.
- •Dispute over an alleged oral agreement (the 'BVI Contract') made on 26 September 2015, where the respondent, Mr. Holm, claimed a 22% partnership in the Bank of Asia Project.
- •Appellants (Sancus Financial Holdings Ltd and others) denied the existence of the oral agreement, arguing that Mr. Holm's entitlement arose solely from a later written Executive Service Agreement.
- •Trial judge found in favour of Mr. Holm, concluding an oral agreement existed and had been breached.
- •Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings.
- •Appellants argued the judge misunderstood the case, lacked sufficient reasoning, and committed procedural irregularities.
Legal Principles
The Privy Council generally will not review concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, except in exceptional circumstances.
Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508; Lord Thankerton's summary outlines the exceptions.
Appellate courts are reluctant to overturn a trial judge's findings of fact.
Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360; Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1; McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58.
To overturn concurrent findings of fact, an appellant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances, ideally before a full hearing.
Al Sadik v Investcorp Bank BSC [2018] UKPC 15.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Privy Council found no exceptional circumstances justifying a review of concurrent findings of fact. The appellants failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the case or insufficient reasoning by the lower courts. The appeal essentially sought a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is inappropriate on a second appeal.
Similar Cases
Inderjit Kaur Chhina v Muhammad Nazir Muhammad Ismail and another (British Virgin Islands)
[2024] UKPC 10
Darren Singh v LMCS Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 5
Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd (Virgin Islands)
[2024] UKPC 16
Della Vallery Nolan nee Jude and another v Vandyke Jude (St Lucia)
[2024] UKPC 22