The Tort Of Deceit, Double Actionability And Renvoi; The Decision In Bidzina Ivanishvili & Ors v Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd 2025 UKPC 53

• Published date: 05 January 2026
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Corporate and Company Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud
• Law Firm: Conyers
• Author: Mr Mark J. Forte and Jevgenija (Jane) Fedotova

On24 November 2025 the Privy Council handed down a judgment in a Bermudian claim for breach of contractual and fiduciary duties and fraudulent misrepresentation issued by a high-net-worth individual Bidzina Ivanishvili against Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd(CS Life), the insurer and issuer of the life insurance policies¹. The fraud was committed by the former senior employee of the Credit Suisse AG (theBank) who, acting as a relationship manager to Mr Ivanishvili, dealt in a fraudulent manner with the policy assets deposited with the Bank and held on trust by CS Life for the benefit of Mr Ivanishvili and his family. When the fraud came to light, Mr Ivanishvili initiated litigation proceedings against various Credit Suisse entities across the world: in Switzerland (criminal proceedings against the banker and civil proceedings against the Bank), in Singapore (a claim against the trustee for breach of fiduciary duties) and in Bermuda. In February 2018 the banker was convicted of fraud forgery and other related offences, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

This article will discuss whether a requirement of "awareness" is a legal requirement to succeed in the tort of deceit; whether the double actionability rule is still good law in (at last) Bermuda, and the role of the private international law doctrine of renvoi in the context of limitation periods. The two main questions before the Privy Council Board were as follows: (i) whether the Court of Appeal rightly dismissed the fraud claim because the plaintiffs did not plead and did not prove that Mr Ivanishvili had any conscious awareness or understanding of the implied representations made to him; and/or (ii) the claim failed due to a three year limitation period under Georgian law .The relevant facts, as found by the first instance judge, were that the banker by recommending to invest in the life policies impliedly represented to Mr Ivanishvili that the Bank was not and did not intend to manage the policy assets fraudulently. The representations were made in Georgia and were acted upon in Georgia.

Is "Awareness" a Legal Requirement of the Tort of Deceit?

Upon extensive analysis of the case law, the Board concluded that a requirement of "awareness" was never amongst the legal requirements of the tort of deceit and any past attempts to introduce such requirement were misconceived.

The Board discussed a string of authorities² where representation was implied and considered the role of "awareness" of...