Attorney General acts on behalf of his office not personally—not precluded from acting as
amicus curiae merely because allegation of misconduct against him personally:
In re Sinel (Royal Ct.),
1999 JLR 135may be improper for Attorney General to act personally as
amicus curiae in case in which allegation of misconduct against him, but nominated Crown Advocate may still appear:
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18reasonable fees and expenses of
amicus curiae appointed to assist court regarded as part of costs and expenses of administration of justice, and paid out of public funds, not costs of party—costs of
amicus appointed to assist appellant with criminal appeal allowable under Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 3(3)(a) as costs of advocate appointed because of insufficiency of appellant’s means:
Ahmed v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2005 JLR N [37]burden on party alleging contempt,
e.g. failure to comply with court order, to prove beyond reasonable doubt:
McPhail v. Dargie (Royal Ct.),
2006 JLR N [29]failure to comply with court order—civil contempt,
e.g. failure to comply with court order, is of criminal character and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt—burden on party alleging contempt—disproportionate and intimidatory allegation of contempt is abuse of process and indemnity costs may be awarded against maker:
McPhail v. Dargie (Royal Ct.),
2006 JLR N [29]abusive remark to judge—may be inappropriate to sentence immediately—contemnor to be given opportunity for legal advice and apology—refusal to apologize may justify imprisonment:
Hall v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR N [4]broadcast, close to trial, of innuendo inadmissible at trial, allegation of existence of offence not charged and assertions pre-empting evidence constitutes criminal contempt:
Shewan v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1999 JLR 192degrees of complicity—court not to order party to act in contempt—persons aiding and abetting or inciting contempt may be guilty of criminal contempt, even if original contempt civil only:
Manton v. Postal Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR N–7interference with administration of justice—attempt to persuade witness not to testify for reward (or other reason) likely to be contempt of court or attempt to pervert course of justice, or both—need not be successful:
United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [1]interference with administration of justice—contempt deliberately to publicize contents of hearing in private—use of material produced in proceedings in private in further application envisaged in those proceedings not contempt if no intent to make material public:
Westbond Intl. Bank Ltd. v. Cantrust (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [29]interference with administration of justice—no contempt if plaintiff uses own information in proceedings in private and later in public if no reference to previous use and content of proceedings in private not disclosed—use by plaintiff of information provided to it in private proceedings in later public proceedings disclosing content of private proceedings may be contempt:
Westbond Intl. Bank Ltd. v. Cantrust (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [29]no maximum sentence for contempt—normally consecutive to other sentences but may be made concurrent—unlikely to be more than 12 months for absconding on bail:
Harrison v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2004 JLR 111referral to Attorney General—Royal Court only to refer alleged contempt or attempt to pervert course of justice if clear and strong case, as Attorney General likely to pay great weight to court’s view:
United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [1]refusal to testify—defence of duress available to witness threatened with serious physical injury or death and refusing to testify—threat of lesser harm may offer mitigation—small fine may be imposed:
Att. Gen. v. Shaw (Royal Ct.),
1992 JLR N–5sentence—fine may be smaller if corporate party has limited assets in Jersey and therefore less available for creditors—exceptionally fine need not be commensurate with seriousness of contempt:
Apricus Invs. v. CIS Emerging Growth Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [5]due weight should be given to entitlement of media to publish and public to read or hear matters of local or national interest—court to guard its proceedings and protect those who come before it, particularly defendants in trials by jury, from prejudice or risk of prejudice:
Shewan v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1999 JLR 192£30,000 fine and punitive (indemnity) costs order appropriate for deliberate and serious breach of court order,
i.e. deliberate removal of trustee’s ordered security for disputed fees—imprisonment disproportionate if contempt fully purged; not repeated; defendant returned to Jersey and admitted and apologized for contempt; and no fraud on third party assets:
Caversham Trustees Ltd. v. Patel (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [60]aggravating factors: seriousness of breach; repeated breaches; no remorse—imprisonment for blatant and aggravated contempt, particularly if contemnor clearly warned of possible consequences:
Caversham Trustees Ltd. v. Patel (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [60]assessment of fine—costs order may amount to substantial sanction and taken into account—court to consider damage to public interest in enforceability of court orders as well as seriousness of contempt; whether contemnor individual or public company; contemnor’s means; and mitigating factors,
e.g. remorse:
Caversham Trustees Ltd. v. Patel (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [60]imprisonment to be fixed not open-ended—to encourage purging of contempt may order sentence review, when court may (a) affirm imprisonment; (b) order release; or (c) indicate future release date:
A v. G (Royal Ct.),
2009 JLR N [27]mitigating factors: previous good character; under pressure; and genuine remorse:
Caversham Trustees Ltd. v. Patel (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [60]civil contempt,
e.g. failure to comply with court order, is of criminal character and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt—burden on party alleging contempt:
McPhail v. Dargie (Royal Ct.),
2006 JLR N [29]civil contempt is of criminal character and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt:
Skinner v. Le Main (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR N–13facts forming basis of alleged civil contempt to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt—need not be set out
seriatim in representation:
Manning v. Le Marquand (née Le Normand) (Royal Ct.),
1987–88 JLR N–8breach of undertaking is contempt of court regardless of intention—may be inappropriate to penalize contemnor for unintentional breach, particularly if minor and no prejudice results:
Taylor v. States Police (Chief Officer) (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR 494waiver if plaintiff takes step in proceedings subsequent to defendant’s contempt—no waiver merely by instituting proceedings alleging contempt:
Channel Islands & Intl. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v. Scarborough (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR 308appeals against interlocutory decisions
in summary proceedings, only appeal to Royal Court—no further appeal to Court of Appeal against interlocutory or final decision—in proceedings on indictment, right of appeal to Court of Appeal but interlocutory appeal limited under Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 90:
Syvret v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2009 JLR 330application for leave under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14 to be granted if matter in dispute exceeds £500 in value and subject of final decision of Court of Appeal—no appeal available from interlocutory decision:
Showlag v. Mansour (C.A.),
1993 JLR 7under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, leave of Court of Appeal for appeal to Privy Council not necessary if value of matter in dispute £500 or more—in absence of such leave, by Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.2, special leave of H.M. in Council still required:
Abdel Rahman v. Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Co. Ltd. (C.A.),
1984 J.J. 127under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, leave to appeal only to be granted if matter exceeds £10,000 and decision final or definitive, disposing of parties’ rights and ending Jersey proceedings—decision to strike out only one of several heads of claim not “decision”—no discretion to grant leave if art. 14 requirements not met:
MacKinnon v. Regent Trust Co. Ltd. (C.A.),
2005 JLR N [20]under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, right to appeal to Privy Council as of right if matter in dispute worth £500 or more, but leave of Court of Appeal required under Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.2—no discretion to refuse leave if case otherwise within art. 14:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 82unless error of principle or other special factor, no leave to appeal to Privy Council on case management issues:
In re Esteem Settlement (Privy Council),
2000 JLR N–6where conditional leave granted under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art.14, leave will lapse if conditions not met—stays granted in support of appeal and conditional upon diligent pursuit of appeal then to be discharged:
Veka A.G. v. T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
2000 JLR N–6appropriate that same Court of Appeal judges hear appeals against conviction and sentence––single judge hearing application for leave to appeal against conviction not
récusé merely because heard appeal against sentence—not objectively biased under European Convention on Human Rights:
Att. Gen. v. Young (C.A.),
1998 JLR 387member of appellate court not disqualified from hearing application to adduce fresh evidence merely because previously adjudicated against or made decision liable to be upset on appeal:
Kirk v. Blackwell (Guernsey C.A.),
1992 JLR N–1single judge may make order for substituted service under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 18—full Court of Appeal has no greater powers:
Classic Trading Co. v. Declercq (C.A.),
1992 JLR 34single judge who refused application for leave to appeal may sit on plenary appellate court—not
récusé for bias as fair-minded and informed observer would not consider real possibility of unfair hearing:
Simpson v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2003 JLR N [1]appeal from
déclaration en désastre of Royal Court possible despite absence of specific appeal provisions in Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 and existence of alternative remedies in arts. 6(3) and 7, since appeal presumed possible in absence of statutory exclusion:
In re Blue Horizon Holidays Ltd. (C.A.),
1997 JLR 124appeal in respect of “civil cause or matter” within Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12 includes appeal in judicial review proceedings regardless of subject matter of administrative decision under review:
Durant Intl. Corp. v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2006 JLR 112appeal in respect of “civil cause or matter” within Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12(2) includes appeal in disciplinary proceedings against advocate:
In re an Advocate (C.A.),
1978 J.J. 193application for leave under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14 to be granted if matter in dispute exceeds £500 in value and subject of final decision of Court of Appeal—no appeal available from interlocutory decision:
Showlag v. Mansour (C.A.),
1993 JLR 7court has jurisdiction to hear appeal from Inferior Number in respect of Judicial Greffier’s order for summary judgment, under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12(1), since has civil appellate jurisdiction formerly vested in Superior Number:
Hambros Bank (Jersey) Ltd. v. Eves (C.A.),
1994 JLR 315Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 16 to determine by whom and to what extent appeal costs payable—includes power to order that appeal costs paid by non-party:
Channel Islands Knitwear Co. Ltd. v. Hotchkiss (C.A.),
2001 JLR 570Court of Appeal has no “appellate jurisdiction” under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12(2) if order of inferior court, in respect of which appeal made, already discharged:
Barker v. Barclays Bank PLC (C.A.),
1989 JLR N–5court very reluctant to interfere with Royal Court’s discretion as to costs—under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 13(c)(ii), cannot hear appeal against costs order without leave of court making it:
Marett v. Marett (C.A.),
2008 JLR 384in ruling on finding of fact by Royal Court, Court of Appeal to uphold conclusions based on credibility of witnesses unless convinced wrong—not to ignore Royal Court’s conclusions and try case on written record:
Jones v. Plane (née Ferkin) (C.A.),
2006 JLR 438in ruling on finding of fact by Royal Court, particularly if issue of credibility or reliability, Court of Appeal to uphold conclusions unless “plainly wrong,” not “unsafe”—if no issue of credibility or reliability, or if matter of inference, Court of Appeal may consider if Royal Court entitled to make finding on evidence but not to decide afresh:
Reg’s Skips Ltd. v. Yates (C.A.),
2008 JLR 191inherent jurisdiction—Court of Appeal has inherent power to abridge time for appeal—power discretionary and to be exercised where necessary or appropriate to ensure just determination of appeal—single judge able to exercise power:
In re a Settlement (C.A.),
1999 JLR 220inherent jurisdiction—court only to invoke inherent jurisdiction outside express rules of practice to suppress abuse of process when necessary to do justice, or to act effectively in resolving issues or enforcing order made:
Jakobsson v. Offshore Nautical Sales Ltd. (C.A.),
2003 JLR 71inherent jurisdiction operates exclusively within that conferred by Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961 and cannot extend it—jurisdiction under art. 12 of Law extended only by implied powers necessary to regulate practice and procedure:
C. Le Masurier Ltd. v. Alker (C.A.),
1992 JLR 123inherent jurisdiction to allow reinstatement of abandoned appeal—usually exercised if would have granted leave for fresh appeal out of time—appeal reinstated if less than month since abandonment, no prejudice to respondent and raises important matters:
Leeds United A.F.C. Ltd. v. Admatch (C.A.),
2009 JLR 186no appeal from Royal Court’s refusal to review Attorney General’s power to investigate fraud—not criminal appeal by convicted person within Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 24, nor appeal in “any civil cause or matter” within art. 12, since purpose of proceedings to affect scope of criminal investigation:
McMahon v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1993 JLR 108no drafting error in Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12(2) allowing appeal from order of Inferior rather than Superior Number—appeal possible since Court of Appeal has appellate powers previously vested in Superior Number:
In re Blue Horizon Holidays Ltd. (C.A.),
1997 JLR 124no jurisdiction under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 18(2) for full court to review order of single judge of Court of Appeal extending time for appeal under Court of Appeal (Civil) (Jersey) Rules 1964, r.16(1):
Taylor v. Taylor (née Hayter) (C.A.),
1987–88 JLR 65no jurisdiction under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 26(1) to allow appeal on sole ground that conviction not supported by evidence if purports to reassess evidence and disagree with Jurats’ view on credibility of witnesses, on basis of written record—Jurats, not Court of Appeal, to assess evidence and determine credibility of witnesses:
Att. Gen. v. Edmond-O’Brien (Privy Council),
2006 JLR 133on appeal, court principally to review Royal Court decision—party may not decide to appear only before Court of Appeal:
Mubarik v. Mubarak (C.A.),
2008 JLR 430power under Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1964 to take decisions as to conduct of appeal (
e.g. on application for security for costs) until substantively decided:
A.P. Black (Jersey) Ltd. v. Jersey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.),
2008 JLR N [4]security for appeal costs—discretion to order security only in “special circumstances” under Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1964, r.12(4),
e.g. appellant’s impecuniosity; residence outside jurisdiction; or appeal abuse of process or vexatious—court to consider that issue already determined by Royal Court and appeal without security for costs
prima facie injustice to successful party if would be unable to enforce costs ordered on appeal:
A.P. Black (Jersey) Ltd. v. Jersey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.),
2008 JLR N [4]specific jurisdiction not extended by general powers conferred by Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 28—general powers limited to determining questions arising within specific statutory jurisdiction—no power to grant bail conferred by art. 28:
Stevenson v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1999 JLR 103supervisory powers limited to those in Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 26(1)—if no misdirection, appeal only allowed if verdict could not have been reached by reasonable jury—court not to usurp jury’s role by reviewing evidence:
Styles v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2006 JLR 210supervisory powers limited to those stated in Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 25—English “lurking doubt” test for “unsafe conviction” not included in art. 25 and not applicable in Jersey:
Bayliss v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2004 JLR 409under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, right to appeal to Privy Council as of right if matter in dispute worth £500 or more, but leave of Court of Appeal required under Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.2—no discretion to refuse leave if case otherwise within art. 14:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 82Court of Appeal to uphold finding of fact by Royal Court based on credibility of witnesses unless convinced wrong—not to ignore Royal Court’s conclusions and try case on written record:
Jones v. Plane (née Ferkin) (C.A.),
2006 JLR 438Court of Appeal to uphold finding of fact by Royal Court, particularly if issue of credibility or reliability, unless “plainly wrong,” not “unsafe”—if no issue of credibility or reliability, or if matter of inference, Court of Appeal may consider if Royal Court entitled to make finding on evidence but not to decide afresh:
Reg’s Skips Ltd. v. Yates (C.A.),
2008 JLR 191court only to depart from Royal Court’s conclusions in assessment of reliability of witnesses in exceptional circumstances—may interfere more readily with conclusions on discharge of burden of proof:
Taylor v. Fitzpatrick (C.A.),
1979 J.J. 1inappropriate for court to give judgment on contested question of law if insufficient submissions and no judgment on matter by Royal Court:
T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. v. Crills (C.A.),
1995 JLR 33in final preparation of case both sides should include references to transcript and documents upon which they rely:
Hyams v. English (C.A.),
1981 J.J. 89notice under Court of Appeal (Civil) (Jersey) Rules 1964, r.8(1)(f) only adequate if includes statement of points to be argued and legal authorities to be cited, with proper references to case names, law reports and relevant quotations:
Robertson v. St. Helier Welfare Bd. (C.A.),
1985–86 JLR N–7documents to be prepared for court in all civil appeals (subject to particular requirements of case):
Benest v. Le Maistre (C.A.),
1998 JLR 213control of Royal Court includes ensuring sentencing procedures fair and in accordance with European Convention—power to be exercised lightly, without imposing fixed rules:
Harrison v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2004 JLR 111court rarely to review sentencing guidelines without support of Attorney General or Royal Court—apart from Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, members not resident in Jersey and less familiar with domestic social and penological issues:
Styles v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2006 JLR 210may interfere with sentence of Royal Court where (a) not justified by law; (b) passed on wrong factual basis; (c) some matter improperly taken into account or fresh matter needs consideration; or (d) sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive:
Harrison v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2004 JLR 111sentencing guidelines not invariable and different starting point may be appropriate in exceptional case—court rarely to find case exceptional and adopt lower starting point on appeal if not considered exceptional by Royal Court:
Styles v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2006 JLR 210inappropriate for single judge to determine question concerning scope of court’s statutory powers,
e.g. whether may hear appeal from Royal Court’s refusal of bail—requires argument before full court:
Att. Gen. v. Young (C.A.),
1998 JLR 387single judge who refused application for leave to appeal may sit on plenary appellate court—not
récusé for bias as fair-minded and informed observer would not consider real possibility of unfair hearing:
Simpson v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2003 JLR N [1]will arrange additional sitting to accommodate hearing of urgent appeal—wrong to refuse extension of time merely because would mean appeal not heard at next planned quarterly sitting of court:
Holderness (née Waring) v. Holderness (C.A.),
1985–86 JLR N–7Judicial Committee of Privy Council
if orders party to appeal to pay other party’s costs, costs incurred in Jersey may be taxed by Judicial Greffier under Colonial Appeal Rules, r.26—Registrar of Judicial Committee may only tax costs incurred in England, under Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.76:
Gheewala v. Compendium Trust Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2006 JLR N [10]application for leave under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14 to be granted if matter in dispute exceeds £500 in value and subject of final decision of Court of Appeal—no appeal available from interlocutory decision:
Showlag v. Mansour (C.A.),
1993 JLR 7under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, leave of Court of Appeal for appeal to Privy Council not necessary if value of matter in dispute £500 or more—in absence of such leave, by Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.2, special leave of H.M. in Council still required:
Abdel Rahman v. Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Co. Ltd. (C.A.),
1984 J.J. 127under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, leave to appeal only to be granted if matter exceeds £10,000 and decision final or definitive, disposing of parties’ rights and ending Jersey proceedings—decision to strike out only one of several heads of claim not “decision”—no discretion to grant leave if art. 14 requirements not met:
MacKinnon v. Regent Trust Co. Ltd. (C.A.),
2005 JLR N [20]under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, right to appeal to Privy Council as of right if matter in dispute worth £500 or more, but leave of Court of Appeal required under Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, r.2—no discretion to refuse leave if case otherwise within art. 14:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 82unless error of principle or other special factor, no leave to appeal to Privy Council on case management issues:
In re Esteem Settlement (Privy Council),
2000 JLR N–6where conditional leave granted under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 14, leave will lapse if conditions not met—stays granted in support of appeal and conditional upon diligent pursuit of appeal then to be discharged:
Veka A.G. v. T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
2000 JLR N–6Loi (1824) concernant l’entérinement d’Ordres du Conseil entre parties only requires registration in Royal Court of Orders in Council made on appeals from Royal Court—does not apply to prerogative Order made on individual petition to H.M. in Council:
Cooper v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1985–86 JLR N–6Judicial immunity from suit
no right of action for appeal costs against judge personally for errors made in course of legal proceedings:
Channel Islands Knitwear Co. Ltd. v. Hotchkiss (C.A.),
2001 JLR 570copies of reported cases produced to court to contain page numbers of original report so that quotations can be properly referenced:
In re Northwind Yachts Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2005 JLR 137English cases to be cited from official Law Reports (published by ICLR) whenever possible—other series only to be used if case not reported in official reports:
Macdoel Invs. Ltd. v. Brazil (Federal Republic) (C.A.),
2007 JLR 201magistrate not to give impression before evidence for defence given that has made up mind on questions of contested fact on prosecution evidence alone:
Comer v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1995 JLR N–12appeals against interlocutory decisions
in summary proceedings, only appeal to Royal Court—no further appeal to Court of Appeal against interlocutory or final decision—in proceedings on indictment, right of appeal to Court of Appeal but interlocutory appeal limited under Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 90:
Syvret v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2009 JLR 330application to be heard in open court as quickly as possible, giving both sides opportunity to be heard—rehearing only if subsequent change of circumstances—Royal Court may review decision only on ground that discretion wrongly exercised:
In re Douglas (Royal Ct.),
1987–88 JLR N–9by Loi (1864) règlant la procédure criminelle, art. 20, Magistrate’s Court has power to grant or vary bail even after accused has been committed to Royal Court—Royal Court has no jurisdiction until indictment laid:
Att. Gen. v. Quirke (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR N–8over-qualified representation in Magistrate’s Court inappropriate—sole practitioner obliged to represent legally-aided defendant acquitted in Magistrate’s Court exceptionally entitled to costs at partner rate rather than usual, lesser rate for qualified advocate:
Jordan v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2005 JLR N [18]delay—4 months’ delay to consider decision unreasonable and unfair to accused—may justify setting aside of decision:
Romeril v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR N [16]Magistrate sitting as examining magistrate not concerned with guilt or innocence and dismissal of case for lack of evidence not basis for plea of
autrefois acquit:
Att. Gen. v. Kelly (Royal Ct.),
1982 J.J. 275possible that Royal Court has general supervisory jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions of Magistrate’s Court by judicial review—will review decision to refuse adjournment:
Att. Gen. v. Collie (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 113Magistrate may recommend deportation of offender, as power under Immigration Act 1971, s.6(1) and not contrary to public policy:
Dryjanski v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2009 JLR N [10]no compromise possible between prosecution and defence over jurisdiction,
e.g. offence to be dealt with in Magistrate’s Court if guilty plea:
Att. Gen. v. Holiday Tours Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [67]no jurisdiction for evidence of overseas witness to be given by television link—under Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 83(1), provision in art. 98(1) for televised evidence only applies to proceedings in Royal Court—amendment to be considered to apply art. 98(1) to all Jersey courts:
Att. Gen. v. Freitas (Royal Ct.),
2009 JLR N [45]no jurisdiction to determine accused’s fitness to plead—should commit case to Royal Court for trial of issue:
Att. Gen. v. O’Driscoll (Royal Ct.),
2003 JLR 157combined effect of Loi (1853) établissant une cour pour la répression des moindres délits, Loi (1864) règlant la procedure criminelle and Magistrate’s Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949 empowers Magistrate to (a) find no answerable case; (b) acquit; (c) convict and sentence; or (d) commit for trial in Royal Court—decision to be deferred until conclusion of
instruction,
i.e. when evidence heard and depositions signed:
Le Cocq v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 169recommendations in probation report
court to indicate if considering more serious sentence than recommended in probation report, particularly if counsel assumes recommendation will be followed:
DB v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2008 JLR N [31]sentence of six months’ imprisonment consecutive to imprisonment already being served in default of fine does not exceed sentencing powers of Magistrate’s Court under Magistrate’s Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949, art. 4(1) and first proviso, as amended:
Att. Gen. v. Teahan (Royal Ct.),
1976 J.J. 409supervisory jurisdiction of Royal Court
possible that Royal Court has general supervisory jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions of Magistrate’s Court by judicial review—will review decision to refuse adjournment:
Att. Gen. v. Collie (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 113Royal Court has no inherent jurisdiction to give instructions to Magistrate’s Court Magistrate—not entitled to order production of his notes of earlier hearing for use as evidence in Royal Court:
In re Sauvage (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–7appeal from judgment of Petty Debts Court for arrears of maintenance under Separation and Maintenance Orders (Jersey) Law 1953 lie in accordance with Loi (1902) sur la Cour pour le recouvrement de menues dettes (appels):
Le Mottée v. Wilson (Royal Ct.),
1978 J.J. 167challenge to notice to quit
no application to be brought out of time if summons not properly served within prescribed period:
In re Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 316equitable jurisdiction—may exercise full equitable jurisdiction including entertaining defence of equitable estoppel—jurisdiction to consider estoppel-based objections to notice to quit not restricted by Loi (1946) concernant l’expulsion des locataires réfractaires, art. 2(1):
C. Le Masurier Ltd. v. Alker (C.A.),
1991 JLR 37exclusive jurisdiction over construction of leases, evictions,
etc.—if contract lease involved Royal Court has jurisdiction:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–5exclusive jurisdiction to make expulsion order against any tenant except contract leaseholder—may consider equitable objections to notice to quit:
C. Le Masurier Ltd. v. Alker (C.A.),
1991 JLR 37exclusive jurisdiction to make expulsion order against refractory tenants—if contract lease involved Royal Court has jurisdiction:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (C.A.),
1990 JLR 1inherent jurisdiction to regulate own procedure—imperfectly issued summons not to be dismissed merely on basis of procedural irregularity but court to exercise discretion to ensure fair trial of issue:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–6Loi (1946) concernant l’expulsion des locataires réfractaires, art. 3(3) confers discretion on magistrate (“
s’il y a lieu”) to adjourn eviction proceedings pending outcome of action in Royal Court:
Alker v. C. Le Masurier Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1992 JLR 173no inherent jurisdiction to regulate own procedure going beyond powers conferred by Petty Debts Court (Jersey) Rules 1977—imperfectly served summons cannot be made valid:
In re Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 316Royal Court may cancel lease but not order possession—delay within sole jurisdiction of Petty Debts Court:
Le Cornu v. C.I. Heat Pump Bureau Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 197no power to adjourn eviction proceedings pending proceedings in higher courts without all parties’ agreement:
C. Le Masurier Ltd. v. Alker (Petty Debts Ct.),
1992 JLR N–9faulty recording machinery
duty of those responsible for recording of court’s judgment to inform court if recording machinery not working properly—court to delay giving of judgment until machinery fully functional—if incomplete recording, advocates’ duty to submit agreed note of judgment to presiding judge for approval:
Rimmer v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2001 JLR 373audio recording of evidence and submissions given
in camera not to be released if unfair or prejudicial to parties—court may prevent plaintiff newspaper revealing content:
Jersey Evening Post Ltd. v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 542although administrative proceedings in Chambers not generally recorded, desirable for transcript of contested matter (
e.g. dispute over appointment of curator) to be available for Court of Appeal:
Picot v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR N [64]desirable for transcript of contested matter (
e.g. dispute over appointment of curator) to be available for Court of Appeal:
Picot v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2008 JLR 69application for
récusation for apparent bias made on insubstantial grounds may be punished by award of indemnity costs—may order advocates to pay costs personally:
Att. Gen. v. Young (C.A.),
1998 JLR 387application for
récusation for apparent bias to be made on substantial grounds—movement of head by members of court in agreement or disagreement with advocates’ statements not substantial—insubstantial applications to be refused and may be punished by indemnity costs:
States Greffier v. Les Pas Holdings Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 196appropriate that same Court of Appeal judges hear appeals against conviction and sentence––single judge hearing application for leave to appeal against conviction not
récusé merely because heard appeal against sentence—not objectively biased under European Convention on Human Rights:
Att. Gen. v. Young (C.A.),
1998 JLR 387Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear case in which States or other Government body interested—not necessarily conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR 304 Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173
Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear case involving conduct of member of States Committee—not apparently biased merely because also preside over States—no infringement of European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6:
Eves v. Le Main (C.A.),
1999 JLR 44Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff not precluded from hearing case argued by advocate previously acting for party bringing action against Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff—no apparent bias if no link between cases:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR 304court not to appear to endorse either party in litigation—no power to order Viscount to supervise transmission of offer to settle proceedings from one party to non-parties investing in other party, financing litigation and with interest in outcome—their interest irrelevant to matter at issue between parties:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173even if objectively no apparent bias, judge may still recuse himself if appropriate,
e.g. if party may retain sense of grievance—preferable for advocate representing aggrieved party to approach judge informally before making formal application:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1998 JLR N–7expression in interlocutory proceedings of views as to prospects of success at full hearing, however inappropriately strong, not to preclude judge’s sitting on substantive appeal—substantive appeal issues entirely different from those in interlocutory proceedings:
In re Esteem Settlement (C.A.),
2001 JLR 169fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude real possibility of bias if judge critical of party in interlocutory hearing but judgment not extreme or unbalanced—party not normally to expect recusal of judge for previous adverse comments or findings against him:
Marett v. Marett (C.A.),
2008 JLR 384inevitable that Jurats sometimes broadly interested in subject-matter of case heard in Island—Jurats to excuse themselves from sitting when might appear biased:
Drew v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1994 JLR 1insubstantial application for
récusation may be punished by award of indemnity costs—Royal Court or Court of Appeal may order advocates to pay costs personally:
Att. Gen. v. Young (C.A.),
1998 JLR 387judge to determine issue of own
récusation—although prudent not to do so in exceptional circumstances, normally wrong for others to resolve issue:
In re Esteem Settlement (C.A.),
2001 JLR 169judge’s criticism of advocates for conduct falling below expected high standards insufficient, without more, as basis for application for
récusation in later cases:
Hirschfield (née Shalome) v. Abacus (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 420judge’s lack of recollection of past event alleged to create apparent bias may be taken into account by hypothetical observer when determining whether real possibility of bias:
Baglin v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2005 JLR 180no “reasonable suspicion or apprehension” that fair trial not possible because Bailiff presides over criminal case prosecuted on behalf of his brother, the Attorney General, where both simply performing regular duties of office—if some other relevant fact,
e.g. Attorney General called as witness or credibility otherwise in issue, potential for apparent bias:
Barra Hotel Ltd. v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 370no
récusation merely because judge has long connection with firm in dispute with party in separate proceedings:
Veka A.G. v. T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1999 JLR 272objective test—whether all material circumstances would lead fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that real possibility or danger that judge biased—subjective opinion of party alleging bias irrelevant:
In re Esteem Settlement (C.A.),
2001 JLR 169objective test—whether reasonable and well-informed person might apprehend real danger that judge will unfairly regard with disfavour party’s case—test to be applied in context of small jurisdiction:
Att. Gen. v. Barra Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 150“reasonable suspicion” test most appropriate—whether reasonable, objective and informed person, having regard to all facts, considers that real suspicion or apprehension of bias,
i.e. judge might unfairly favour or disfavour one party—court to regard with caution—burden on applicant to establish:
Hirschfield (née Shalome) v. Abacus (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 420recusal of Jurats as a body only in exceptional circumstances—must show real possibility that Jurats would not give complainant same fair hearing and treatment as any other party:
In re Sinel (Royal Ct.),
1999 JLR 135single judge who refused application for leave to appeal may sit on plenary appellate court—not
récusé for bias as fair-minded and informed observer would not consider real possibility of unfair hearing:
Simpson v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2003 JLR N [1]test for apparent bias—no established test in Jersey—“reasonable apprehension” test may be preferable to “real danger” test as places emphasis on how matter would be viewed by ordinary rather than legally qualified citizen:
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18test for apparent bias—whether fair-minded and informed observer, having considered facts, would conclude real possibility of bias—no possibility of bias if judge acquainted with Jersey authorities with whom accused in opposition—characteristics of fair-minded and informed observer listed:
Syvret v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2009 JLR 330test for apparent bias—whether hypothetical observer would conclude “real possibility” (not “real danger”) of bias—gross bad manners by party in previous appearance before judge, including spitting and swearing at court, insufficient to create real possibility of bias—mere allegation of bias without evidence also insufficient:
Baglin v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2005 JLR 180test for apparent bias—whether, in circumstances, reasonable person would consider real danger of bias on part of judge in relation to party before him:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173appeal against composition of court
no appeal against composition of court if issue could have been raised at trial—failure is acquiescence in composition:
Drew v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1994 JLR 1application for
récusationapplication is “cause or matter” within Court of Appeal (Civil) (Jersey) Rules 1964, r.12(2)—no fresh evidence to be adduced if available at trial unless special grounds:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173application to be made early in proceedings and certainly before directions hearing:
Hirschfield (née Shalome) v. Abacus (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 420party alleging apparent bias to approach judge informally before making formal application for
récusation—application to be heard by judge himself—appeal lies to Court of Appeal against that decision:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173Jurat of Royal Court
récusé if has financial interest in subject-matter of case in which sits:
Drew v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1994 JLR 1involvement of close relative in case—Bailiff not personally embarrassed by presiding over criminal case prosecuted on behalf of his brother, the Attorney General:
Att. Gen. v. Barra Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 150although
récusation refused, judge may decline to sit if applicant’s advocate has given applicant serious concern about trial:
Hirschfield (née Shalome) v. Abacus (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 420where
récusation refused, wrong in principle for judge nevertheless to decide not to sit, unless some personal or other difficulty:
In re Esteem Settlement (C.A.),
2001 JLR 169error in headnote of judgment distributed
headnote prepared after judgment delivered can have no influence on decision in case:
Forrester v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2001 JLR 395in camera judgment to be made public whenever possible—potential embarrassment, convenience or parties’ preference irrelevant—potential prejudice to parallel criminal proceedings may justify privacy:
Jersey Evening Post Ltd. v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 542
evidence submitted at trial not in public domain unless read out by judge or released by parties—audio recording of evidence and submissions given
in camera not to be released if unfair or prejudicial to parties—court may prevent plaintiff newspaper revealing content:
Jersey Evening Post Ltd. v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 542appeals against interlocutory decisions
in summary proceedings, only appeal to Royal Court—no further appeal to Court of Appeal against interlocutory or final decision—in proceedings on indictment, right of appeal to Court of Appeal but interlocutory appeal limited under Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 90:
Syvret v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2009 JLR 330appeals from Employment Tribunal
under Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 94, appeal from decision of tribunal as to fairness of dismissal only on question of law,
i.e. if (a) misdirected itself in law or misapplied or misunderstood law; (b) no evidence to support conclusion or finding of fact; or (c) decision perverse or obviously wrong—court not to substitute own finding for tribunal’s, even if erred in law—case to be remitted unless only one proper outcome (
i.e. any other decision would be perverse):
Voisins Dept. Store v. Brown (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR 141appeals from Judicial Greffier
court not to consider
de novo unless necessary to ensure justice done,
e.g. no transcript available of proceedings before Greffier:
Strecker v. Simpkin (Royal Ct.),
1996 JLR N–9Judicial Greffier not equivalent to full judge of Royal Court—discretion given to court or judge only initially delegated to Greffier and remains for Royal Court to exercise on appeal:
Murphy v. Collins (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 276Judicial Greffier to ensure proceedings heard in Greffe properly recorded, to allow review of evidence on appeal—if no proper record, Royal Court may treat appeal as rehearing:
Richomme v. Le Gros (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR N–6on appeal from Judicial Greffier’s refusal to refer issue under Royal Court Rules 1982, r.6/19 court to exercise own discretion:
Broad Street Invs. (Jersey) Ltd. v. National Westminster Bank PLC (Royal Ct.),
1985–86 JLR 6principles governing appellate court’s interference with exercise of judicial discretion apply to appeal to Royal Court against Judicial Greffier’s order for costs,
i.e. appeal may be allowed if Royal Court would have reached different decision:
B v. R (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR N [9]unfettered discretion to hear appeal as circumstances and justice of case require—principles for exercise of discretion:
Murphy v. Collins (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 276appeals from Magistrate’s Court
fresh evidence admissible in Royal Court if unavailable at trial, relevant to issues and well capable of belief:
Knapp v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–7in summary proceedings, only appeal to Royal Court—no further appeal to Court of Appeal against interlocutory or final decision—in proceedings on indictment, right of appeal to Court of Appeal but interlocutory appeal limited under Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, art. 90:
Syvret v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2009 JLR 330may only interfere with decision if satisfied insufficient evidence for decision reached, or wrong conclusions and inferences drawn from evidence:
Milho v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 363under Magistrate’s Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949, art. 17(3), no appeal from community service order—amendment desirable:
DB v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2008 JLR N [31]unfettered discretion to hear appeal as circumstances and justice of case require—principles for exercise of discretion:
Murphy v. Collins (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 276where defence evidence available at trial, but not put forward, and no change in prosecution’s position, not exceptionally admissible on appeal as fresh evidence:
Whelan v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR N–43appeals to Superior Number from Inferior Number
not strictly appeals but re-examination of case heard below—Superior Number not entitled to examine pleas or evidence not given before Inferior Number:
Briggs & Co. (Jersey) Ltd. v. Sayers (Royal Ct.),
1963 J.J. 311appointment—Bailiff and Attorney General’s right of veto over appointments, under Departments of Judiciary and Legislature (Jersey) Law 1965, art. 1(2), solely within own departments—no right of veto over each other’s appointment:
Barra Hotel Ltd. v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 370personal embarrassment—involvement of close relative in case—Bailiff not personally embarrassed by presiding over criminal case prosecuted on behalf of his brother, the Attorney General:
Att. Gen. v. Barra Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 150récusation—no “reasonable suspicion or apprehension” that fair trial not possible because Bailiff presides over criminal case prosecuted on behalf of his brother, the Attorney General, where both simply performing regular duties of office—if some other relevant fact,
e.g. Attorney General called as witness or credibility otherwise in issue, potential for apparent bias:
Barra Hotel Ltd. v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 370
binding force of Court of Appeal decision
case management—essential strategy of Court of Appeal to be followed by Royal Court unless subsequent events make departure necessary—substantial further evidence may justify altering procedure laid down by Court of Appeal:
In re Esteem Settlement (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR N–6generally binding, though decision may be invalidated by subsequent legislation or compelling change of circumstances:
State of Qatar v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.),
1999 JLR 118binding force of own previous decision
although no collateral attack on subsisting judgment (
e.g. by suing advocate for negligent handling of case), principle not applicable where judgment obtained by consent:
T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. v. Crills (C.A.),
1995 JLR 33court entitled to depart from previous decision given
per incuriam—to be satisfied that previous decision given in advertence to binding authority and that if previous court had been advertent would have decided differently:
Att. Gen. v. Weston (Royal Ct.),
1979 J.J. 141court will follow previous decision of differently-constituted court as matter of judicial comity unless convinced wrong:
Abdel Rahman v. Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 103duty to follow unless convinced wrong:
State of Qatar v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.),
1999 JLR 118Inferior Number normally to follow carefully considered earlier decision of differently constituted Inferior Number as matter of comity unless convinced wrong:
Att. Gen. v. Weston (Royal Ct.),
1979 J.J. 141jugement motivé without detailed reason commonly delivered by Royal Court before 1950, not authoritative guide to principles, law or procedure which may have been applied:
Att. Gen. v. Weston (Royal Ct.),
1979 J.J. 141
Royal Court bound by own previous decision unless convinced that wrong—court not to accept precedent it considers wrong merely because of small size of jurisdiction and small number of precedents—Court of Appeal to resolve resulting inconsistencies between judgments:
Att. Gen. v. Hall (Royal Ct.),
1995 JLR 102Royal Court may depart from own previous decision if convinced wrong,
e.g. may change previous Jersey test of occupiers’ liability to foreseeability test, as applied in Commonwealth and Guernsey:
Knight v. Thackeray’s Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR 279Royal Court to follow own previous decision unless convinced that wrong—if so convinced, court may depart from decision even though contradicts established procedure,
e.g. obtaining defence costs from public funds under Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 2:
Santos Costa v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1996 JLR 87although, under Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 15(4), judge has casting vote if Jurats disagree, if Jurats agree tribunal not biased despite judge’s inappropriate remarks favouring prosecution unless attitude materially influenced Jurats:
Michel v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR N [54]Bailiff’s casting vote in Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(4) confers discretion which must be exercised judicially—no convention that Bailiff’s casting vote on sentencing to be used on side of leniency:
Sheldon v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1996 JLR N–19death of Jurat—Jurat dying during hearing may be replaced by another if able to read transcript of evidence to date and parties agree:
Jersey Contractors Ltd. v. Renoufs Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1966 J.J. 569desirable that if Inferior Number conducts
Newton hearing, it should also pass sentence—Superior Number may sentence following
Newton hearing in Inferior Number if necessary for just sentence:
Att. Gen. v. Carvalho (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [15]desirable that ongoing child access dispute heard before same judicial personnel for consistency:
G v. A (Royal Ct.),
2005 JLR 93Inferior Number constituted differently but as nearly as possible as when making consent order appealed from treated as “the court making the order” for purpose of granting leave to appeal under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 13(
c):
Vekaplast K.G. v. T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR 269judges of Royal Court who receive report of Order in Council not barred from sitting in subsequent proceedings concerning registration of order and not
per se evidence of bias—limited number of judges in Jersey makes overlap inevitable and effects to be judged on facts:
Cooper v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1987–88 JLR 51Jurats are independent and impartial tribunal for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6(1)—not incompatible with art. 6(1) for Jurats and judge to deliberate together:
Snooks v. United Kingdom (E.C.H.R.),
2002 JLR 475presiding judge to retire with Jurats in trial before Inferior Number, even though by Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(2), Jurats are sole judges of fact—judge to limit own contribution to matters of law—may adjourn to open court or give directions to Jurats if question of law arises:
Att. Gen. v. Young (Royal Ct.),
1998 JLR 111properly constituted when Bailiff (or Deputy Bailiff) sitting with Jurats throughout whole of criminal trial—Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13 does not allow separate retirement of Jurats during interlocutory submissions or at end of trial to consider verdict:
Att. Gen. v. Bale (Royal Ct.),
1983 J.J. 7Royal Court’s decision on admissibility of evidence properly made by judge alone since that issue, including ancillary findings of fact, is question of law under Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(1) and not for Jurats:
Lundy v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1996 JLR 193discipline of officers of court
in disciplinary proceedings Attorney General, either himself or by nominated advocate, to (a) provide assistance as to law, practice or procedure; (b) offer conclusions as to appropriate sanction if misconduct found:
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18jurisdiction to discipline advocates exercisable by Royal Court itself, not Judicial Greffier:
Bland v. First Natl. Comm. Bank PLC (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 80may discipline advocate (a) where client suffered loss due to his neglect or misconduct; or (b) where acted without authority—in former case, may order advocate to compensate client; in latter, may follow English practice to stay orders against client and order advocate to pay costs:
Bland v. First Natl. Comm. Bank PLC (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 80may order costs to be paid by advocate for behaviour defeating course of justice,
e.g. professional negligence causing inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecution leading to dismissal for want of prosecution—mere mistake or error of judgment not behaviour justifying exercise of such power:
Skinner (née Ball) v. Myles (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 98Superior Number appropriate tribunal to determine charge of advocate’s professional misconduct:
In re Sinel (Royal Ct.),
1999 JLR 135basis of final judgment not to be attacked in separate action, even indirectly—action against advocate for negligent handling of case may amount to indirect attack and may be struck out:
T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. v. Crills (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 348Inferior Number has no power under Royal Court Rules, r.6/29 to permit intervention in proceedings in which judgment already given, since r.6/18(2) precludes hearing of further evidence after judgment:
Dick v. Dick (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR N–6judgment binding personal representative also binds potential beneficiary who is not party to action—estopped from challenging enforcement against him unless “facts and matters particular to his case”:
L.G.L. Admors. Ltd. v. Abdul Rahman (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR N–10no power to set aside own earlier previous judgment or order unless authorized by statute:
Le Marquand v. Chiltmead Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1987–88 JLR 86Vue de Vicomte traditionally an Héritage matter but may be ordered by Samedi Division without transferring action:
Robins (née Bidwell) v. Les Charrières Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1987–88 JLR N–15
court to make clear findings of fact and inferences drawn, with reasons, and to consider submissions fully—not obliged to set out details of every finding, nor to address every submission comprehensively irrespective of significance:
Channel Islands Knitwear Co. Ltd. v. Hotchkiss (C.A.),
2001 JLR 234court to make clear findings of fact and reasons for decision—adequacy of reasons depends on individual case—may be helpful to consider separately issues of fact, issues of law, how resolved and why, consequent results—if leave to appeal sought for lack of reasons, court to consider adequacy of reasons and if necessary provide more:
Jersey Post v. Chartier (C.A.),
2007 JLR 187court to make clear findings of fact and reasons for decision—reasons adequate if identify issues, how resolved and why, consequent results:
Reg’s Skips Ltd. v. Yates (C.A.),
2008 JLR 191desirable for Royal Court to give reasons for decision in addition to making order in Act of Court, to facilitate task of Court of Appeal if appeal taken:
Todman v. Black (C.A.),
1980 J.J. 255transparency in sentencing important—court’s reduction of usual one-third discount for guilty plea may appear arbitrary if no reasons given:
Shahnowaz v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR 221apparent bias—correspondence between Judicial Greffier and party to proceedings to be copied to other parties—important that when acting in administrative capacity, avoids giving impression that when in judicial capacity, will decide issues in particular way:
Bower v. Planning & Environment Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR N–5Judicial Greffier has jurisdiction delegated by Royal Court under r.13/3(1)(b) of Royal Court Rules 1982, to give declaratory judgment in non-contentious applications:
In re Hanson (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 222jurisdiction—since within definition of “Court” in Royal Court Rules 1992, r.1/1(1), may exercise all jurisdiction of Royal Court, including hearing contentious matters and striking out pleadings:
Cooper v. Lieutenant Governor (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 325jurisdiction to discipline advocates exercisable by Royal Court itself, not Judicial Greffier:
Bland v. First Natl. Comm. Bank PLC (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 80no jurisdiction to give declaratory judgment or to confirm interim injunction—if jurisdiction appropriate, should be conferred by rules of court:
Showlag v. Mansour (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–3power to remove trustee under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 15(4)(a) not to be exercised by Judicial Greffier on application for summary judgment, since power vested in Inferior Number:
Butler v. Axco Trustees Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR N–16apparent bias—interest of Jurat in outcome of
dégrèvement not necessarily fatal,
e.g. if director of party becoming
tenant, since if procedure correctly followed, court bound to make order:
Eves v. Hambros Bank (Jersey) Ltd. (Privy Council),
1995 JLR 344apparent bias—no established test in Jersey—“reasonable apprehension” test may be preferable to “real danger” test as places greater emphasis on how matter would be viewed by ordinary, rather than legally qualified, citizen:
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18apparent bias—whether fair-minded and informed observer would conclude real possibility of bias not matter of discretion for judge—account to be taken of quality of tribunal—Jurats experienced, with sound judgment and integrity able to obey proper direction to ignore prejudicial material:
Michel v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR N [54]appeals against sentencing discretion—direction by judge at
Newton hearing subject to appeal—decision of Jurats only reviewable if so unreasonable no reasonable panel of Jurats would come to it—transcript of proceedings in open court to be made to facilitate appeal:
MacKenzie v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1995 JLR 9by Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13, Jurats and not judge judges of fact—experienced Jurats aware of their role unlikely to be influenced by judge’s adverse opinion of credibility of defence evidence:
MacKenzie v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1995 JLR 9court properly constituted when Bailiff (or Deputy Bailiff) sitting with Jurats throughout whole of criminal trial—Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13 does not allow separate retirement of Jurats during interlocutory submissions or at end of trial to consider verdict:
Att. Gen. v. Bale (Royal Ct.),
1983 J.J. 7death of Jurat—Jurat dying during hearing may be replaced by another if able to read transcript of evidence to date and parties agree:
Jersey Contractors Ltd. v. Renoufs Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1966 J.J. 569description of system of Jurats:
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18experienced, with sound judgment and integrity—not held incapable of obeying proper direction to ignore prejudicial material:
Michel v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR N [54]Jurats are independent and impartial tribunal for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6(1):
In re Sinel (C.A.),
2000 JLR 18Jurats are independent and impartial tribunal for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6(1)—not incompatible with art. 6(1) for Jurats and judge to deliberate together:
Snooks v. United Kingdom (E.C.H.R.),
2002 JLR 475Jurats’ failure to give reasons for guilty verdict not contravention of European Convention on Human Rights as (a) position analogous to jury; (b) no evidence that verdict arbitrary; (c) safety of convictions examined on appeal; and (d) judge gives reasons for sentences passed:
Snooks v. United Kingdom (E.C.H.R.),
2002 JLR 475Jurats not obliged to give reasons for findings of fact to sustain sentence after
Newton hearing:
MacKenzie v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1995 JLR 9Jurats not required for hearing of application for directions under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47 if largely procedural and does not require facts to be found:
In re B Settlement (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR N [33]no power to interfere with award of costs or any conditions attached to it:
Arya Holdings Ltd. v. Minories Fin. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR N–3no requirement that same Jurats who convict must also pass sentence:
Barra Hotel Ltd. v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 370presiding judge to retire with Jurats in trial before Inferior Number, even though by Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(2), Jurats are sole judges of fact—judge to limit own contribution to matters of law—may adjourn to open court or give directions to Jurats if question of law arises:
Att. Gen. v. Young (Royal Ct.),
1998 JLR 111Royal Court’s decision on admissibility of evidence properly made by judge alone since that issue, including ancillary findings of fact, is question of law under Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(1) and not for Jurats:
Lundy v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1996 JLR 193unlike jury, permanent members of court, familiar with role as fact finders and may be relied on to form independent conclusion:
Michel v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2007 JLR 628application for mandatory stay of Jersey proceedings under Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998, art. 5 is application disputing court’s jurisdiction over party in respect of subject matter of claim, under Royal Court Rules 2004, r.6/7(4)(f)—under r.6/7(7), time limit for filing pleadings in Jersey proceedings only to run from dismissal or abandonment of stay application:
Open Joint Stock Co. “Alfa-Bank” v. EN+ Group Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2009 JLR N [38]bail pending appeal—only Royal Court has jurisdiction to grant bail—no jurisdiction in Court of Appeal:
Stevenson v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1999 JLR 103by Child Custody (Jurisdiction) (Jersey) Law 2005, art. 5(1), court has jurisdiction to order return of child to Jersey if child habitually resident in Jersey,
e.g. family home, school and father’s work in Island:
S v. S (Royal Ct.),
2008 JLR N [26]by Loi (1864) règlant la procédure criminelle, art. 20, Magistrate’s Court has power to grant or vary bail even after accused has been committed to Royal Court—Royal Court has no jurisdiction until indictment laid:
Att. Gen. v. Quirke (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR N–8by Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 1(1) only Inferior Number has jurisdiction to hear applications under Law—single judge or Judicial Greffier has no jurisdiction:
Channel Islands & Intl. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v. Pike (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–13cancellation clause in non-contract lease does not operate to cancel without judicial act—power to cancel lease vests in Royal Court:
Beghins Shoes Ltd. v. Avancement Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR 15criminal jurisdiction—issue of fitness to plead to be tried by Royal Court—Magistrate’s Court should commit for trial by Royal Court when issue raised:
Att. Gen. v. O’Driscoll (Royal Ct.),
2003 JLR 157criminal jurisdiction—Royal Court, not Magistrate’s Court, to hear cases of dealing in or importing illegal drugs with intent to supply for commercial gain—allows development of sentencing guidelines:
Wass v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1995 JLR N–9execution of instruments—if transfer to wife of husband’s share in matrimonial home ordered by court on divorce and agreed by parties but wife unable to pass contract because seriously ill and near death, court may order contract to be passed on her behalf so that order not rendered nugatory—no power to execute instrument under Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949, art. 36 as no neglect or refusal to comply by wife:
D v. N (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [43]general equitable jurisdiction—allows application of all equitable remedies including specific performance:
York St. Pharmacy v. Rault (Royal Ct.),
1974 J.J. 65general equitable jurisdiction—allows application of English principles of promissory estoppel in flexible manner to prevent injustice even if no other cause of action exists:
Pirouet v. Pirouet (Royal Ct.),
1985–86 JLR 151general equitable jurisdiction—allows application of principles of fairness derived from English decisions—if adopted, English equitable principles to be applied consistently:
West v. Lazard Bros. & Co. (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 165general equitable jurisdiction—allows court to recognize doctrine of part performance, with reliance by plaintiff on oral promise, as justification for ordering defendant to implement contract of sale:
Symes v. Couch (Royal Ct.),
1978 J.J. 119general equitable jurisdiction—allows use of remedy of specific performance to enforce contract of sale of personalty,
e.g. shares, but not sale of realty:
Taylor v. Fitzpatrick (C.A.),
1979 J.J. 1general equitable jurisdiction—enables court to consider principles of English trusts law if no Jersey authority:
In re Malabry Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1982 J.J. 117general equitable jurisdiction—general equitable jurisdiction to provide remedy for wrong done or threatened corresponds more closely to French “
equité” than to English equity:
Ex p. Viscount Wimborne (Royal Ct.),
1983 J.J. 17general equitable jurisdiction—general equitable jurisdiction to provide remedy gives broad power of “fairness,” as in French “
equité” not English Chancery rules—includes jurisdiction to grant declaration:
Trollope v. Jackson (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 192general equitable jurisdiction—party seeking equity must come with “clean hands” but question of degree whether “dirty” enough to preclude invoking equitable jurisdiction:
Maçon v. Quérée (née Colligny) (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 80general equitable jurisdiction—plaintiff only denied equitable relief because does not come with “clean hands” if substantial and immediate connection between alleged misconduct and relief sought:
Alhamrani v. Alhamrani (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [52]general equitable jurisdiction—Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 gives Royal Court equitable jurisdiction—“fraud” by trustees under law is equitable fraud (
dol),
i.e., civil wrong, not criminal fraud (
fraude):
West v. Lazard Bros. & Co. (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1993 JLR 165general supervisory jurisdiction over Magistrate’s Court—possible that general right of judicial review of interlocutory decisions—will review decision to refuse adjournment:
Att. Gen. v. Collie (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 113general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—exercised to consider reasonableness of trustee’s costs and expenses if proper allegation of unreasonableness,
i.e. allegation not obviously bad so not struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action—same threshold for challenge to neutral trustee’s litigation costs as non-litigation costs—no higher threshold of real concern:
Alhamrani v. J.P. Morgan Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd. (C.A.),
2007 JLR 527general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—gives ample power to prevent plundering of fund by trustee—usual remedies for breach of trust, fiduciary duty or other misconduct available—jurisdiction not exercised lightly but appropriate action taken if real concern that claim unreasonable:
J.P. Morgan Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd. v. Alhamrani (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [26]general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—includes power to authorize, increase or vary trustee’s remuneration—may also order remuneration under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 26(1)(c)—power to be exercised sparingly—corporate trustee remunerated for reasonable fees, even though not authorized as trustee, because settlor and beneficiaries expected to pay for work of particular fee earner (even if changes employer):
Landau v. Anburn Trustees Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR 250general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—may appoint receivers of trust in exceptional cases—appropriate if expertise required to realize assets from complex corporate structure to make payment ordered by court—appropriate if trustee has no expertise; and no alternative trustee available:
In re IMK Family Trust (Royal Ct.),
2008 JLR 250general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—on application for directions concerning order of foreign court in matrimonial proceedings varying trust, court not concerned under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 9(2)(b) whether trust avoids or defeats rights, claims, or interests conferred on spouse of settlor or whether trust defeats foreign order—only concerned whether to direct trustee to give effect to order—art. 9 irrelevant to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under art. 51:
In re H Trust (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR 569general supervisory jurisdiction over trusts—order of foreign court varying Jersey trust (
i.e. requiring exercise of trustee’s power under trust) may be given effect under Royal Court’s general supervisory jurisdiction or by directions under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 51—no power to give effect to alteration of Jersey trust (
i.e. requiring departure from terms of trust)—directions under art. 51 not “enforcement” of foreign order for purposes of art. 9(4):
In re IMK Family Trust (Royal Ct.),
2008 JLR 250inherent jurisdiction—action may be struck out under inherent jurisdiction for want of prosecution or under Royal Court Rules 2004, r.6/25 if court satisfied that (a) inordinate and inexcusable delay; and (b) substantial risk that impossible to have fair trial or likely to cause serious prejudice to defendant—stricter test appropriate for dismissal under r.6/26(13) for failure to issue summons for directions within time limit as failure to comply with rule:
B v. M-R (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [48]inherent jurisdiction—allows striking out of frivolous or vexatious action—discretionary power only exercised in clear case—court may look at all evidence to decide if action to be struck out:
Mauger (née Kenny) v. Batty (Royal Ct.),
1995 JLR N–8inherent jurisdiction—court has inherent jurisdiction to order discovery and payment from funds held in Jersey in aid of proceedings in foreign courts as matter of comity—not restricted to issuing
Mareva injunctions:
SP v. AJP (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR N [15]inherent jurisdiction—court has inherent jurisdiction to supervise and, if appropriate, intervene in administration of trust—beneficiary’s right to seek disclosure of trust documents one aspect of this jurisdiction:
In re Broere Trusts (C.A.),
2004 JLR N [2]inherent jurisdiction—court may reinstate action “deemed to have been withdrawn” under Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/20(2) using inherent jurisdiction only if plaintiff meets burden of showing exceptional circumstances—failure to progress action due to ongoing negotiations between parties not exceptional—court to balance interests of parties and avoid prejudice to either:
Croxford (née Fort) v. Le Claire (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR 304inherent jurisdiction—court may remove trust protector for due cause:
In re Freiburg Trust (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [13]inherent jurisdiction—court not to create procedure more appropriately made by legislature or rule-making power of Superior Number—may order Viscount to act as intermediary in pre-trial negotiations with non-parties with interest in proceedings:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR 326inherent jurisdiction—derives from necessity,
i.e. court has powers necessary to make it effective as court, to maintain authority and prevent abuse of process—in civil proceedings, necessity judged by parties’ objectives—party invokes court’s function if seeks protection by defending proceedings:
Alhamrani v. Alhamrani (Royal Ct.),
2008 JLR N [16]inherent jurisdiction—discretion to prevent advocate from acting if unable to fulfil overriding duty of independence from external interests and motives, whether financial, professional or personal:
Takilla Ltd. v. Olsen, Backhurst & Dorey (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR 219inherent jurisdiction—exercised if party flouts or ignores court orders or persistently unwilling to participate fully—if appropriate, may strike out or threaten to strike out defendant’s pleading:
Alhamrani v. Alhamrani (Royal Ct.),
2008 JLR N [16]inherent jurisdiction—in absence of local legal authority, has inherent jurisdiction to prevent wrong being committed:
Sayers v. Briggs & Co. (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1964 J.J. 399inherent jurisdiction—inherent jurisdiction derives from necessity,
i.e. court has powers necessary to make it effective as a court:
Eves v. Hambros Bank (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 221inherent jurisdiction—inherent jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings to grant injunction preserving subject-matter of proprietary action pending determination of issues—distinct from
Mareva injunction:
Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (C.A.),
2001 JLR 671inherent jurisdiction—inherent jurisdiction to allow costs in criminal matters limited to matters over which court has inherent jurisdiction—does not include assistance to foreign court in criminal matters:
In re Lampaert (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 290inherent jurisdiction—inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by enjoining vexatious litigants from commencing or continuing proceedings without leave:
Eves v. Hambros Bank (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 221inherent jurisdiction—inherent jurisdiction to strike out goes beyond strict interpretation of Royal Court Rules 1982, r.6/13 provided not incompatible with Rules:
Le Cocq v. Gillespie (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–5inherent jurisdiction—major changes thought desirable,
e.g. introduction of interlocutory exchange of witness statements, preferably to be introduced by rules of court after consultation with Rules Committee, not by judgment of Judicial Greffier:
Pirunico Trustees (Jersey) Ltd. v. Jefferson Seal Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1997 JLR N–3inherent jurisdiction—may assist in foreign insolvency even if foreign country not prescribed in Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Rules 1991, r.11(4), especially if reciprocity confirmed:
In re F. & O. Finance A.G. (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR N–5inherent jurisdiction—may exist in respect of matters about which statute silent or to supplement permissive jurisdiction granted by statute—cannot exist if inconsistent with mandatory statutory provision:
Jones (S.M.) v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 103inherent jurisdiction—may exist in respect of matters about which statute silent or to supplement permissive jurisdiction granted by statute—cannot exist if inconsistent with mandatory statutory provision—may order cancellation of
hypothèque conventionnelle simple in Public Registry if underlying debt repaid—power derives from necessity,
i.e. necessary to make court effective and enable it to do things ancillary to explicit powers:
In re Moustras (Royal Ct.),
2006 JLR 491inherent jurisdiction—may grant declaration in appropriate case, to resolve actual not theoretical dispute:
Craven v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1970 J.J. 1425inherent jurisdiction—may grant
Mareva injunction over husband’s trust assets pending division by court:
Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 334inherent jurisdiction—may hear application from trustees for directions as to future conduct of litigation concerning trust—trustees’ duty to propound trust and need not wait for beneficiaries to argue merits of case:
Clore v. Stype Trustees (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1984 J.J. 13inherent jurisdiction—may issue letter of request authorizing English court to place insolvent Jersey company in administration in England—appropriate to do so if in best interests of company’s creditors:
In re O.T. Computers (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR N [10]inherent jurisdiction—may make orders for custody and access mirroring those of foreign court for welfare and protection of minor children—may be made concerning child intending to live in Jersey but takes effect only when within jurisdiction:
F v. H (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 492inherent jurisdiction—may order cross-examination of party on contents of affidavit if fails to make full and frank disclosure of assets and liabilities required by order ancillary to
Mareva injunction—court to be slow to make order:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR N–10inherent jurisdiction—may order deponent of affidavit in support to attend for cross-examination and may refuse to act on affidavit if no cross-examination—
bona fide application seeking cross-examination of deponent in interlocutory proceedings to be granted unless exceptional circumstances:
Arya Holdings Ltd. v. Minories Fin. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–2inherent jurisdiction—may order pleadings and other written contentions, including Committee’s case in administrative appeal, to be particularized or clarified—jurisdiction parallel to rules of court and not displaced by them:
Finance & Econ. Cttee. v. Bastion Offshore Trust Co. Ltd. (C.A.),
1994 JLR 370inherent jurisdiction—may order separation of different causes of action included in same action if hearing them together would embarrass or delay trial or is otherwise inconvenient:
Vaucluse Court Ltd. v. Takilla Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–5inherent jurisdiction—may order States Committee/administrative body to supply further and better particulars of case and clear statement of defence:
Bastion Offshore Trust Co. Ltd. v. Finance & Econ. Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR N–1inherent jurisdiction—may strike out action for want of prosecution if default in compliance with rules or excessive delay in prosecution—if action brought within prescription period and plaintiff may seek second order of justice, discretion to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances:
Benest v. Kendall (Royal Ct.),
1992 JLR N–2inherent jurisdiction—no inherent jurisdiction to disqualify person from driving—court to specify for which offence(s) disqualification imposed and length of disqualification for each offence—Superior Number may do so on appeal:
Gaspar v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [28]inherent jurisdiction—no inherent jurisdiction to order regulated entity to perform obligation under directions issued by Jersey FSC under Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998, art. 23—powers only conferred by 1998 Law:
Jersey Fin. Servs. Commn. v. Anchor Trust Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2007 JLR N [6]inherent jurisdiction—no inherent jurisdiction to vary order under Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990, art. 12, determining interests in bankrupt’s matrimonial home:
In re B (Royal Ct.),
2005 JLR N [31]inherent jurisdiction—no power to allow trial to continue with fewer than 12 jurors:
Jones (S.M.) v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
2000 JLR 103inherent jurisdiction—no power to order Viscount to supervise transmission of offer to settle proceedings from one party to non-parties investing in another party, financing litigation and with interest in outcome—their interest irrelevant to matter at issue between parties—court not to appear to endorse either party to litigation:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173inherent jurisdiction—no power under inherent jurisdiction or statute to appoint guardian
ad litem for mentally ill person out of Jersey:
In re CD (Royal Ct.),
1995 JLR N–19inherent jurisdiction—no precise boundaries, but derives from necessity,
i.e. court has powers necessary to make it effective as a court,
vis-à-vis parties then before it—jurisdiction not available to create new remedies—whether particular power exists depends on traditional legal reasoning:
Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.),
1998 JLR 173inherent jurisdiction—no reinstatement under inherent jurisdiction of action dismissed under Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/20(1), save in exceptional circumstances:
Ebor S.A. v. Incat Constr. (Holdings) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 280inherent jurisdiction—prior to Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, court’s equitable power to give relief to person threatened with wrong more similar to French
équité than English equity—settled principles of English law apply to constructive trust established by Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 29 as based on English jurisprudence:
Fiduciary Management Ltd. v. Sheridan (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR N [11]inherent jurisdiction—recovery of “after-the-event” insurance premium does not satisfy “necessity” test required for exercise of court’s inherent jurisdiction to award costs:
Riley v. Pickersgill (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 196inherent jurisdiction—Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue letter of request to English court seeking assistance in winding up Jersey company in England if mostly trading there and in best interests of creditors—avoids duplication of costs in concurrent insolvency proceedings in Jersey and England:
In re O.T. Computers Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [4]inherent jurisdiction—unlimited inherent power to make orders for protection and welfare of children—may grant access to child in favour of any person, whether or not blood relative, if in child’s best interests:
G.S. v. D.S. (Royal Ct.),
2004 JLR N [49]inherent jurisdiction—unlimited inherent power under
parens patriae jurisdiction exercised in minor’s best interests to be balanced against jurisdiction to uphold police exercise of duties and powers in public interest—may override minor’s refusal to consent to proposed action when need to assist police outweighs danger to minor’s health and well-being:
In re X (C.A.),
2003 JLR 111inherent jurisdiction—unlimited inherent power under
parens patriae jurisdiction—may override refusal of minor to give consent,
e.g. to release to police of tissue from aborted foetus—not balancing exercise between minor’s wishes and public interest in enforcing law—parents’ desire to prosecute alleged father irrelevant:
In re X (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 509inherent jurisdiction—unlimited inherent power under
parens patriae jurisdiction to be exercised in minor’s best interests—not balancing exercise between
parens patriae jurisdiction and jurisdiction to uphold police exercise of duties and powers in public interest—court to assist police in investigation of crime unless public interest outweighed by risk to minor’s best interests:
In re X (C.A.),
2003 JLR 111inherent jurisdiction to order interim payment on account of costs before taxation, generally 50%:
Centre Trustees (C.I.) Ltd. v. van Rooyen (Royal Ct.),
2009 JLR N [29]issues in dispute under lease not to be referred to arbitration, on gound of public policy, if issues thereby considered twice—not appropriate to refer if Royal Court would have to consider findings of arbitrator when dealing later with issues not suitable for arbitration:
Beghins Shoes Ltd. v. Avancement Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1994 JLR 15jurisdiction over construction of leases, evictions,
etc. only if contract lease involved:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–5jurisdiction to make expulsion orders against refractory tenants only where contract lease involved—if contract lease not involved Petty Debts Court has exclusive jurisdiction:
Airport Business Centre v. Harbours & Airport Cttee. (C.A.),
1990 JLR 1no inherent jurisdiction to create new offences in respect of undesirable behaviour—may only declare boundaries of established categories of crime and apply existing principles to new facts:
Att. Gen. v. Thwaites (Royal Ct.),
1978 J.J. 179no inherent jurisdiction to give instructions to Magistrate’s Court Magistrate—not entitled to order production of his notes of earlier hearing for use as evidence in Royal Court:
In re Sauvage (Royal Ct.),
1989 JLR N–7no jurisdiction to hear equitable objections to notice to quit—exclusive jurisdiction over expulsion of refractory tenants vested in Petty Debts Court:
C. Le Masurier Ltd. v. Alker (C.A.),
1991 JLR 37no jurisdiction under Royal Court Rules 1992, r.1/5, to overturn judicial act such as dismissal of action by court under r.6/20(1):
Ebor S.A. v. Incat Constr. (Holdings) Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
2001 JLR 280no statutory or inherent jurisdiction to require cross-undertaking in damages from Attorney General or foreign authority for continuance of
saisie judiciaire in Jersey:
In re Batalla-Esquival (Royal Ct.),
2002 JLR 192Royal Court may cancel lease but not order possession—delay within sole jurisdiction of Petty Debts Court:
Le Cornu v. C.I. Heat Pump Bureau Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1991 JLR 197if appeal to Court of Appeal abandoned except as to costs, appeal becomes one “as to costs only” and leave of Royal Court then required under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 13(
c)(ii):
Lapidus (née Carter) v. Lapidus (C.A.),
1987–88 JLR N–2Registrar of Family Division
Registrar not equivalent to full judge of Royal Court—discretion given to Royal Court only initially delegated to Registrar and remains for Royal Court to exercise on appeal:
Murphy v. Collins (Royal Ct.),
2000 JLR 276registration of Orders in Council
Loi (1824) concernant l’entérinement d’Ordres du Conseil entre parties only requires registration in Royal Court of Orders in Council made on appeals from Royal Court—does not apply to prerogative Order made on individual petition to H.M. in Council:
Cooper v. Att. Gen. (Royal Ct.),
1985–86 JLR N–6order may be registrable either because capable of being acted on within meaning of “put in execution” in Order in Council, 1679, or because any action taken by Royal Court on order may require registration pursuant to Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 15 for consistency—failure to register may amount to purely technical rather than substantive fault:
Cooper v. Att. Gen. (C.A.),
1987–88 JLR 51stay of order pending appeal
court has concurrent jurisdiction with Court of Appeal over applications to stay execution pending appeal—appellant may make application for stay to either court:
Sloan (née Amy) v. Sloan (C.A.),
1987–88 JLR 651variation of Court of Appeal order
power to vary order of Court of Appeal on procedural matters only—no such power where main feature of order is substantive one of plaintiff’s
locus standi:
Abdel Rahman v. Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1990 JLR 59court has no original jurisdiction to determine disputed boundaries but only to review
Vue de Vicomte at
Vue de Justice by Bailiff and two Jurats:
Robins (née Bidwell) v. Les Charrières Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.),
1987–88 JLR N–15under Magistrate’s Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949, art. 17(3), no jurisdiction to hear appeal against community service order—amendment desirable:
DB v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2008 JLR N [31]adjournment of proceedings
young offenders to be sentenced as soon as possible—on application of co-accused for order for case stated, Youth Court may refuse to adjourn sentencing if sentence not dependent on application:
Le G v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2004 JLR 204desirable for Youth Court to give brief reasons for decision:
S. v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2001 JLR N [4]recommendations in probation report
court to indicate if considering more serious sentence than recommended in probation report, particularly if counsel assumes recommendation will be followed:
DB v. Att. Gen. (Youth App. Ct.),
2008 JLR N [31]
