The Court of Appeal in Steadroy Matthews v Garna O’neal held that the Court has jurisdiction to award pre-judgment interest. In doing so the Court reaffirms the decision of Andrey Adamovsky et al v Andriy Malitskiy et al and declares Alphonso v Ramnath good law.

In Steadroy Matthews v Garna O’neal , this Court considered whether a court in the BVI has jurisdiction to award pre-judgment interest on general damages and thus whether the the High Court judge was entitled to award pre-judgment interest or if such a decision was an error in law.

The Court held that having regard to Alphonso v Ramnath, it did not specifically peg its decision on the judgment in Jefford v Gee, an English case which was challenged on the fact that England had specific legislation providing for prejudgment interest and the BVI did not. The Court stated that, in Alphonso v Ramnath it made a pronouncement which has since been followed by courts throughout the Eastern Caribbean.

Furthermore, the Court held that section 3 (1) of the Law  Reform  (Miscellaneous  Provisions) Act,  1934  (the  UK  Act)  is applicable in the BVI by virtue of section 7 of the  West  Indies Associated  States  Supreme  Court  (Virgin  Islands)  Act, which provides that: “The High  Court  shall  have  and  exercise  within  the  Territory  all  such jurisdiction  (save  and  except  the  jurisdiction  in  Admiralty)  and  the  same powers  and authorities  incidental  to  such  jurisdiction as  on  the  first day of January, 1940 was vested in the High Court of Justice in England.” 

The Court noted that the judgment in Alphonso v Ramnath, has not been overruled by any higher court but instead, has been reinforced by the judgment of the Privy Council in another BVI appeal in the case of Creque v Penn. The Court illustrated that in that case, the Privy Council held that: “They are satisfied that the court had jurisdiction to award pre-judgment…”.

Alphonso v Ramnath is now settled law in the Territory of the Virgin  Islands  on  the  issue of  pre-judgment  interest  on  damages, and  that its authority is  buttressed by the judgment of this Court  in Adamovsky v Malitskiy, in which this Court stated “It cannot be disputed that a party wrongfully deprived by another of money to which the first party is entitled ought to be compensated for his loss, not just by an award to him of the sum of money to which he was entitled, but so too  by  an  award  of  the  time  value  of  the  money  from  the  date  of  its appropriation  to  the  date  on  which  it  is  ordered  to  be  paid  to  him.  This latter award is what is referred to as an award of pre-judgment interest”.

From Steadroy Matthews v Garna O’Neal, an issue of contention is now settled, in that even where states do not specifically provide for prejudgment interest by statute, the Court has the discretion to award interest on damages to a claimant from the date of the loss to the date of judgment.