David Burt is expected to tell MPs today whether Bermuda will take legal action against the UK over a move compelling the island to make its company ownership registry public by the end of 2020.

The Premier and Minister of Finance is likely to make a statement to the House of Assembly on the issue, days after he criticised the British Parliament for voting for the measure, which will also affect the other British Overseas Territories but not the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

MPs in the House of Commons gave the green light to the amendment on Tuesday. It states that if any OT doesn't introduce a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies, the Secretary of State must, by December 31, 2020, prepare a draft Order in Council requiring it to do so.

Lawyers here have been considering the legality of the amendment.

Tim Marshall, a consultant at Marshall, Diel & Myers, said the UK Parliament was able to make Orders in Council that affect its territories, including Bermuda, but would normally only do so after consultation.

He said obtaining the consent of the territories, though preferable, was not a prerequisite to Britain “exercising their legislative power”.

Mr Marshall added: “Our constitution [itself] is an Order in Council, made pursuant to the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967. The UK can amend that or repeal it any way they see fit.

“They don't exercise that supreme power with any degree of frequency but in special circumstances they certainly have, Turks & Caicos being a case in point.”

Mr Marshall said in the case of the company ownership registry, it was his belief that Britain could impose its will “if this is something that they feel absolutely compelled to do”.

But he questioned whether it was the right thing to do or whether any “real or actual problems” with regards to tax compliance actually existed and needed addressing by the amendment.

“This seems to be taking a hammer to a very small nail,” he said. “There are treaties that allow them, in appropriate circumstances, to gain access to who the beneficial owners of companies are.”

He described the amendment as “draconian” and said it was “really irresponsible” for MPs to approve it “without any real thought as to how it's going to damage” the affected territories.

Peter Sanderson, head of litigation at Benedek Lewin, said there had been a convention for the last 150 years that the UK parliament did not interfere with Bermuda's internal laws.

“On Tuesday, although not quite yet interfering, the UK Parliament threw down a gauntlet,” he wrote, in a Letter to the Editor.

“Of course, this might not come to pass. The UK Parliament might have less of an appetite for interference in 2020 when the time comes to vote on the order. However, this is a threat that has been made, and one that Bermuda ought to take seriously.”

He said if the UK was allowed to get away with this once it would “only get bolder with their interference in future” and praised Mr Burt for his “strong statement” on the issue.

“This is the appropriate response from Bermuda and our jurisdiction should refuse to implement any such 'requirement' imposed by the UK and, further, refuse to enforce the law if the UK imposes it on Bermuda.

“More immediately, our government could inform the UK authorities that, on principle, they will not even entertain any discussion of a public register, or further co-operation on related matters, until the UK law 'requiring' them to do so has been repealed.”

Mr Sanderson said Bermuda could also have remedies under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1, which protects the self-determination of people to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.