Rayley Company Limited and others (Respondents) v Kathryn Ma Wai Fong (as Executrix of the Estate of the late Wong Kie Nai and Derivatively on behalf of Rayley Company Limited) (Appellant) (Virgin Islands)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0018

Jurisdiction

British Virgin Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

Kathryn Ma Wai Fong

Respondent(s)

(1) Wong Kie Yik, (2) Wong Kie Chie

(1) Incredible Power Limited, (2) Esben Finance Limited

Rayley Company Limited

Issue

Whether the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (“CA”) erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the consequential orders of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (“SC”) on the grounds that the trial judge failed to discharge his judicial duties by adopting the submissions of the respondent.

Facts

The appellant, Ms Ma, is the executrix of the estate of her late husband, Wong Kie Nai. Wong Kie Nai and his two brothers (Wong Kie Yik and Wong Kie Chie) had equal shares in Rayley Company Limited (“Rayley”), a Liberian company that traded in timber. The two brothers also controlled Esben and Incredible Power Limited (“IPL”), two British Virgin Islands companies. In the weeks that followed Wong Kie Nai’s death, his two brothers caused two payments in the sums of US$ 331,565.55 and SG$917,513.32 to be made from Rayley’s bank accounts to Esben. A few months after that, they caused a debt of AU$6,617,783 that was owed to Rayley to be paid to IPL. Ms Ma, derivatively on behalf of Rayley, claimed against the two brothers, IPL, and Esben in respect of the three payments. In a Judgment of 4 May 2021 (“2021 Judgment”), the SC found in Ms Ma’s favour, allowing her claims for breach of directors’ duties, dishonest assistance, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt, as well as her claims for interest and costs. The SC also directed that Ms Ma be indemnified by Rayley for her reasonable costs of the proceedings and any costs she had been or might be ordered to pay to any other party but limited this to the total amounts to which Rayley was entitled pursuant to the proceedings (“Rayley Indemnity”). It made consequential orders on 11 November 2021 and 19 January 2022. The respondents appealed to the CA, arguing that, in his 2021 Judgment, the Judge had copied extensively from Ms Ma’s written closing submissions. The respondents appealed also against the 11 November 2021 and 19 January 2022. Ms Ma cross-appealed against the limitation imposed on the Raley Indemnity. In its Judgment of 15 January 2025, the CA allowed the respondents’ appeals, set aside the judgment and consequential orders, ordered a retrial and gave the respondents their costs of their appeals. The appellant now appeals to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

12 March 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top