Subject-Matter Index

Abuse of process

appeals to Privy Council. See COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council)

burden of proof

burden of establishing abuse on party alleging it: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. ITG Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [9]

control by court

abuse of process for court to hear appeal if substantive issues already resolved without trial unless public interest involved—hearing appeal then merely academic and not proper to take up court time and increase costs—may dismiss appeal without hearing: Maurice v. States of Alderney (Chief Executive) (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [7]

election between judgments

if two suits seek inconsistent remedies, only potentially abusive at point of judgment—plaintiff then to make election between judgments and not allowed to “blow hot and cold”—abusive if judgments mutually exclusive or impossible to co-exist in law: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. ITG Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [9]

indemnity basis. See Costs—indemnity basis

leave to appeal. See COURTS (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal)

meaning

use of court’s process in way significantly different from ordinary and proper use of process—many categories of abuse and list not closed: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. ITG Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [9]

overlap between causes. See Pleading—striking out

striking out. See Pleading—striking out

Adjournment

availability of counsel

no adjournment because counsel unavailable if inconvenience and loss caused by instructing new counsel outweighed by other party’s further costs and expenses, and injustice of further delay: Gilliham v. NRG Distribution (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [7]

factors to be considered

court to consider importance of proceedings, risk of prejudice to parties, convenience of court, need for efficient dispatch of court business, desirability of not delaying future litigants and extent to which party seeking adjournment responsible for difficulty leading to application: Gilliham v. NRG Distribution (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [7]

if refusal of adjournment would cause applicant serious injustice, should only be refused if only way justice can be done to other party, e.g. if already long delay between tabling cause and concluding case, and injustice and increased expenses of other party caused by further delay outweigh applicant’s if adjournment refused: Gilliham v. NRG Distribution (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [7]

imminent change in law

in pursuance of overriding objective to deal with cases justly, court may adjourn trial heavily dependent on hearsay evidence to allow imminent Evidence in Civil Proceedings (Guernsey and Alderney) Law 2009 (abolishing rule against hearsay) to come into force—if transitional provisions permitted, parties might then apply to court for waiver of hearsay rule in proceedings: Hitchins v. Hill (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [3]

Advocates’ duties to court. See ADVOCATES (Duties to court)

Advocates’ fees. See Costs—advocates’ fees

Affidavits

advocate’s responsibility for accuracy

advocate’s duty to check factual submissions based on true facts and ensure affidavits contain true and complete factual statements—reliance on instructing lawyers from outside jurisdiction insufficient: Masood v. Zahoor (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [18]

affidavit containing expert evidence. See EVIDENCE (Expert evidence—admissibility)

affidavit of compliance. See Discovery—affidavit of compliance

further and better particulars. See Further and better particulars—affidavits

service out of jurisdiction. See Service out of jurisdiction—affidavit in support

Alternative dispute resolution. See TRUSTS (Settlement of disputes—alternative dispute resolution)

Alternative means of service. See Service of documents—alternative means of service. Service out of jurisdiction—alternative means of service

Amendment of pleading. See Pleading—amendment

Appeals

abridgement of time for appeal

time for service of notice of appeal from Royal Court may be abridged by directions from single Judge of Court of Appeal if interests of justice require appeal hearing before expiry of statutory period, e.g. if decision needed before critical loan falls due without prospect of renewal: In re F (C.A.), 2013 GLR 388

abuse of process. See Abuse of process—control by court. Pleading—striking out

appeal costs

appeal against costs. See Costs—appeal against costs

security for costs. See Costs—appeal costs

appeals against costs. See Costs—appeal against costs

appeals against exercise of discretion

although granting or refusing application for adjournment is matter of discretion, appellate court has power and duty to review exercise of discretion if causes injustice to either party: Gilliham v. NRG Distribution (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [7]

appeal against order made in Magistrate’s discretion not by way of re-hearing—presumption that Magistrate’s findings of fact and decision on them are correct and to be accepted by the Royal Court unless perverse: A v. B (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [22]

appeal court not normally to interfere with Royal Court’s exercise of discretion in awarding financial provision—only legitimate if decision applies correct rules but goes beyond generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement possible: D v. D (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 334

appeal court not to interfere with trial court’s exercise of discretion unless decision based on misunderstanding of law or evidence, wrong inference drawn from facts, or change of circumstances since hearing—should not start by exercising own independent discretion but defer to lower court’s exercise of discretion—irrelevant that would itself have exercised discretion differently: A v. B (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [22]

appeal court not to interfere with trial court’s exercise of discretion unless decision based on misunderstanding of law or evidence, wrong inference drawn from facts, or change of circumstances since hearing justify application to vary decision: Kaduna Ltd. v. Durtnell (R.) & Sons Ltd. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 208

appellate court not generally to interfere with lower court’s exercise of discretion under Arbitration (Guernsey) Law 1982, s.4 but may do so if discretion exercised on wrong basis: States v. Miller & Baird (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 295

appellate court not to purport to exercise trial court’s discretion afresh on appeal if no evidence that incorrectly exercised below: Equatorial Guinea (President) v. Royal Bank of Scotland Intl. (P.C.), 2005–06 GLR 373

to succeed in appeal from Royal Court’s exercise of own discretion in giving directions under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, s.69, appellant to show that court wrong in law to hold that proposed exercise of discretion by trustees within range of proper exercises of power—not necessary to show that ignored relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant considerations, or reached decision that no reasonable judge could have reached: In re F (C.A.), 2013 GLR 388

appeals as of right. See COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—appeal as of right)

appeals from Juvenile Court. See COURTS (Royal Court—appeals from Juvenile Court)

appeals from Royal Court. See COURTS (Royal Court—leave to appeal)

appeals from States Committees. See PLANNING LAW (Appeals)

appeals to Judicial Committee. See COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—appeal as of right), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal)

case management. See Case management—appeal

costs of appeal. See Costs—appeal costs

cross-appeals. See COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council)

decisions of Jurats

appellate court not to interfere with Jurats’ view of evidence and credibility of witnesses, or with consequent factual findings, unless satisfied that no evidence on which could reasonably have reached those findings, or findings otherwise perverse: Birnie v. Lloyd (C.A.), 2015 GLR 114

appellate court only to interfere with decisions of Jurats if satisfied that no evidence on which could reasonably have arrived at findings of fact, or that those findings otherwise perverse: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

Court of Appeal only to interfere with decision of Jurats if no evidence on which could reasonably have reached findings, or findings otherwise perverse—perverse if findings mutually contradictory after purporting to follow proper direction from judge: Stone v. Hickman (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [23]

Court of Appeal only to interfere with factual findings of Jurats if satisfied no evidence on which could reasonably have been made or perverse—court reluctant to interfere if findings made after vue de justice: Smith v. Slawther (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 168

in determining appeal under Court of Alderney (Appeals) Law 1969, s.2(1), test to be applied is whether Jurats’ findings so contrary to evidence as to be perverse—perversity question of law, not fact, and appeal therefore to be heard by judge alone: Courtney v. Alderney Building Co. (1992) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [17]

delay in delivery of judgment. See Judgments and orders—delivery of judgment

dismissal without hearing. See Case management—appeal

employment adjudication appeals. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal), (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—appeals)

expedited hearing

applicant to demonstrate objective urgency—application for expedited hearing of company’s appeal against Royal Court’s refusal to sanction scheme of arrangement dismissed as no objective urgency (currency fluctuations between sterling and euro likely to continue): Puma Brandenburg Ltd. v. Aralon Res. & Inv. Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2017 GLR N [4]

extension of time for appeal

court may allow leave to appeal out of time if sufficient doubts about justice of appellant’s situation, even if appellant’s significant delays culpable and unproductive litigation causes respondent unnecessary stress: Pirito v. Curth (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 571

court to take all circumstances into account—underlying purpose of Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.3 is expeditious commencement of appeal: Fort Trustees Ltd. v. ITG Ltd. (C.A.), 2021 GLR N [2]

in absence of Guernsey rules for extension of time in appeals in family proceedings, proper to reply on English rules for civil appeals generally—to consider length of delay, reason for delay, whether arguable case on appeal, degree of prejudice to respondent if time extended—interests of justice likely to outweigh prejudice if arguable case on important legal question needing consideration: E v. E (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 133

mistaken extension of time for appeal by Utility Appeals Tribunal not excusable as “procedural irregularity” within meaning of s.16(2) of Regulation of Utilities (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2001, since non-compliance with time limit in s.15(4) not irregularity but mistake going to jurisdiction—since Tribunal regulated by statute, cannot confer jurisdiction on itself, even if all necessary parties consent: Cable & Wireless Guernsey Ltd. v. Office of Utility Regulation (Dir. Gen.) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [7]

no denial of right to fair hearing of appeal, contrary to European Convention, art. 6, to refuse Utility Appeals Tribunal right to extend 14-day time limit in Regulation of Utilities (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2001, s.15(4), if appellant aware of limit and not onerous for advocates to comply—not inequality of arms merely because appellant has 14 days to appeal and respondent 42 days to reply: Cable & Wireless Guernsey Ltd. v. Office of Utility Regulation (Dir. Gen.) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [7]

no extension of time for leave to appeal to Judicial Committee of Privy Council if no reason for failure to meet time limit: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 376

no power for Utility Appeals Tribunal to extend time for appeal under Regulation of Utilities (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2001, s.15(4), since extension without statutory authority would effectively confer extra jurisdiction not intended by States—proceedings taken outside time limit invalid: Cable & Wireless Guernsey Ltd. v. Office of Utility Regulation (Dir. Gen.) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [7]

Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to extend time for appeal under Insurance Managers and Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2002, s.43, since no power in legislation—no legislative intent that failure to observe time limit fatal—extension of time by court justified if otherwise causes injustice: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 221

Royal Court may grant extension of time to apply for leave to appeal if notice of appeal properly served within time—may consider application before or after expiry of statutory period—unjust to penalize applicant who ensures notice of intention to appeal properly served in time: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

setting down appeal. See Appeals—setting down appeal

sufficient dereliction of duty in failing to observe appeal procedure, necessitating extension of time, justifies order for payment of both parties’ costs by advocate personally: E v. E (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 133

findings of fact

decisions of Jurats. See Appeals—decisions of Jurats

no effective distinction between no evidence to support finding of fact by Jurats in lower court, and some but not sufficient evidence: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

Royal Court not to interfere with finding of fact unless satisfied no evidence on which Juvenile Court could reasonably have made it or otherwise perverse—Royal Court only to interfere with value judgment (e.g. whether threshold crossed for compulsory intervention under s.35 of Children (Guernsey and Alderney) Law 2008) or exercise of discretion (e.g. what order to make on HSSD’s application in respect of child) if satisfied Juvenile Court’s decision wrong: In re K (A Minor) (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 227

format of orders on appeal. See Judgments and orders—format of orders on appeal

fresh evidence

appeal court to admit fresh evidence only if could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence in lower court, would probably have had important influence on result, and is apparently credible: Smith v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2013 GLR 279

Court of Appeal may admit fresh evidence pursuant to Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12(2) if not obtainable with reasonable diligence for use at trial; would probably have important influence on case; and apparently credible: Smith v. Slawther (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 106

on appeal against compulsory winding-up order made by Royal Court following company’s failure to pay statutory demand (in respect of €22m. debt found to be due in French proceedings in Tribunal de Commerce de Paris and upheld by Paris Court of Appeal, although further appeal to Cour de Cassation), Court of Appeal refused to admit fresh evidence of subsequent decision of Cour de Cassation quashing order of Paris Court of Appeal and remitting matter to that court: In re JJW Ltd. (C.A.), 2021 GLR 209

on appeal against Juvenile Court’s decision to make community parenting order, parents’ admission (made by their advocate) that lied on oath in Juvenile Court as to misuse of drugs not admitted as new evidence as could have been available in lower court—appeal considered on evidence presented to lower court in light of admission of perjury: In re K (A Minor) (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 227

relevant evidence must not have been available at trial; reasonable explanation must be given for not previously adducing evidence; and evidence must be credible and capable of raising reasonable doubt in minds of arbiters of fact: Le Billon v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 276

grounds of appeal

appeal from Royal Court sitting as Full Court only if misdirection of Jurats, no evidence on which could reasonably have relied for findings of fact, or findings of fact perverse: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

hearing de novo. See ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Appeals—hearing de novo)

hearing in private/public. See Hearing—hearing in private

housing. See HOUSING (Appeals)

interlocutory appeals. See Appeals—leave to appeal

interlocutory orders. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders)

leave to appeal

appeals from Royal Court. See COURTS (Royal Court—leave to appeal)

appellate court’s powers to review decision of lower court limited to assessing alleged error of principle, taking into account of irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, and interfering if decision plainly wrong: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.24 relating to criminal appeals of no help in interpreting s.15 dealing with civil appeals—structure of s.24 focuses on grounds of appeal but structure of s.15 on proceedings in Royal Court: Ferbrache v. C & R Homes (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 455

court’s “blessing” of “momentous” decision by trustees on application for directions under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, s.69, results in final declaration—not interlocutory and no need for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal: In re F (C.A.), 2013 GLR 388

extension of time. See Appeals—extension of time for appeal

Judicial Committee. See COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal)

leave required to appeal against striking out of committal application, as potential for interference with or deprivation of liberty of alleged contemnor: Tchenguiz v. Akers (C.A.), 2018 GLR N [3]

leave required under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(d) if “value of matter in dispute” less than £200—sum “in dispute” is that awarded in Royal Court judgment against which appeal brought—value of original sum sought in cause or at trial, if different, not relevant as no longer in issue: Ferbrache v. C & R Homes (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 455

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal granted unless appeal has no real prospect of success—fanciful prospect insufficient—not lower threshold than in England and Wales: Tchenguiz v. Akers (C.A.), 2018 GLR N [3]

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal normally granted and only refused if appeal has no real prospect of success—exceptionally granted without real prospect of success, e.g. if issue of great public interest or general policy: Fort Trustees Ltd. v. ITG Ltd. (C.A.), 2021 GLR N [2]

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal normally granted and only refused if appeal has no real prospect of success—exceptionally granted without real prospect of success if issue of great public interest or general policy: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal normally granted and only refused if appeal has no real prospect of success—fanciful prospect insufficient—exceptionally granted without real prospect of success, if issue of great public interest or general policy, or where authority binding on appeal court needs reconsidering: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal only granted if appeal has “real prospect of success”: Cotterill v. Ozanne (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 1

leave to appeal to Court of Appeal required under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(e) if decision interlocutory—interlocutory if, when decision given one way, finally disposes of matter in dispute but when given other way allows action to proceed—decision final (and leave not required) if totally disposes of matter whichever way given: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

no express provision as to form or content of proposed appeal in Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16, but to save time and ensure certainty application to show ground of appeal, supporting argument or documentation indicating appeal intended: E v. E (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR N [7]

no leave required under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(d) if “question of law” contested in Royal Court, parties expected it to be decided there and remains live issue to be decided on appeal—may be question of law embedded in question of mixed law and fact: Ferbrache v. C & R Homes (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 455

Royal Court. See COURTS (Royal Court—appeals from Court of Alderney)

litigants in person

court always willing to allow some indulgence to litigants in person but not if ignorance of simple legal requirements so serious that not excusable—all appellants to familiarize themselves with and observe rules of appeal procedure, especially if go beyond compliance with mere administrative requirements—ignorance of rules for setting down appeal too important to disregard since important part of process for informing court that service of notice of appeal effected on all parties: Birnie v. Lloyd (C.A.), 2015 GLR 114

matters of fact. See Appeals—decisions of Jurats. Appeals—findings of fact

matters of law. See Appeals—decisions of Jurats. Appeals—point not argued

notice of appeal

applicant may give notice within statutory period without first having obtained leave to appeal—court may consider application to grant leave before or after expiry of statutory period—unjust to penalize applicant who ensures notice of intention to appeal properly served in time: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

pursuant to Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.3, notice of appeal to be served within 28 days—party seeking leave to appeal to be aware that 20-day period may be required to cover preparation of original application and filing of renewed application following rejection by Royal Court—if period is exceeded, extension of time required: Guernsey Competition & Regulatory Auth. v. Medical Specialist Group LLP (C.A.), 2023 GLR N [3]

under Sark customary law, appeals from Seneschal’s Court to be instituted by notice within 40 days of judgment—Seneschal not to abridge time without giving reasons or parties chance to be heard—abridgement to 28 days not manifestly unreasonable—Royal Court may extend time period if no application to Seneschal to do so: de Carteret v. Mann (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [18]

planning. See PLANNING LAW (Appeals)

point not argued

cannot raise on appeal point not argued before Guernsey Tax Tribunal—point not raised or decided if no evidence on it put before Tribunal: Income Tax Administrator v. Tremoille Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 295

cannot raise on appeal point not argued below: Trinity Inv. Ltd. v. Long Port Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 162

if parties professionally represented, improper for appellate court to advance submissions and decide appeal on matters of law not raised by parties on appeal or below: Equatorial Guinea (President) v. Royal Bank of Scotland Intl. (P.C.), 2005–06 GLR 373

preparation of bundles

in complex cases, desirable for parties to prepare bundle of agreed documents and relevant information—for appeals against assessments to income tax, parties to provide indexed, paginated and chronological bundle of relevant documents, and written summary of arguments with attached legal authorities shortly before hearing: Income Tax Administrator v. Tremoille Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 295

re-hearing. See Appeals—appeals against exercise of discretion

setting down appeal

in absence of Guernsey authority on extension of time for setting down appeal, court to follow general rules governing applications for extension of time for appeal—applicants to show sufficiently arguable case on appeal and court to be willing to exercise discretion in favour of granting extension after considering applicants’ failure to act in time, delay, prejudice to respondent from delay and other relevant factors: Birnie v. Lloyd (C.A.), 2015 GLR 114

rules for setting down appeal for hearing not merely administrative but important part of process for informing court that service of notice of appeal effected on all relevant parties—simple steps to be taken rapidly and may be inexcusable for litigant in person not to comply: Birnie v. Lloyd (C.A.), 2015 GLR 114

stay of appeal. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—appeals)

stay of execution

if stay properly granted pending determination of appeal to Court of Appeal, may be extended pending determination of further appeal to Privy Council—stay properly granted if designed to prevent outcome of appeal being made nugatory: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

Application of foreign law. See Service out of jurisdiction

Application to European Court of Human Rights. See Stay of execution—application to European Court of Human Rights

Apportionment of costs. See Costs—apportionment

Assignment of debt. See Judgments and orders—judgment debt

Assistance in foreign proceedings. See Disclosure—Norwich Pharmacal order

Bill of costs. See Costs—taxation of costs

Burden of proof

delay. See Dismissal for want of prosecution—delay

Case management

appeal

consolidation of actions. See Consolidation of actions—factors to be considered

directions for conduct of action

if party recently ill or provides evidence, e.g. travel schedule, that genuinely unavailable on date of hearing, court may extend time for compliance only as long as absolutely necessary: Ozannes v. Virani (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [28]

in making order for directions for civil trial, court to consider availability of parties, judge, Jurats and court room, parties’ interests, and need for timeous hearing—party may need to prioritize compliance over other matters—no extension of time for compliance on ground that timetable falls within period of religious compliance, e.g. Ramadan: Ozannes v. Virani (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [28]

dismissal without hearing. See Case management—appeal

extreme prolonging of suit

multiple applications, disregarding previous rulings in same proceedings, etc. may be unconscionable if application against litigant in person—classic case for pro-active case management: Virani v. Guernsey Intl. Trustees Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 472

trial of preliminary issue. See Trial of preliminary issue

tribunals. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—regulation of Tribunal’s procedure)

Chambers proceedings. See Ex parte applications—restraint orders. Hearing—hearing in private

Clameur de Haro. See INJUNCTIONS (Clameur de Haro)

Commencement of proceedings

summons

by Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.89, proceedings commenced when plaintiff hands summons to H.M. Sergeant for service on defendant: Braun v. Brantridge Estates Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 252

Compensation. See Set-off—compensation in customary law

Compliance with court order

extension of time

if time for compliance close to expiry, party at risk of non-compliance to seek agreement of opponent to extension of time under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.43(2)—if refuses or only court can extend time (under r.43(1)), party at risk to apply at once or attempt to comply—court treats applications for extension fairly and reasonably, recognizing that strict compliance may have become impossible: Bank of Scotland v. Moed (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [3]

non-compliance with order

non-compliance with court order or rules of court in principle capable of amounting to serious dereliction of duty to court giving rise to claim for wasted costs—trial court to decide whether serious enough to pass threshold test: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

“unless” order

if application for “unless” order for security for costs revised so that proceedings struck out rather than stayed, greater severity of sanction is mitigating factor in deciding whether order justified for applicant’s reasonable protection: Shamurin v. Base Metal Trading Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [19]

Conflict of laws. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Civil procedure)

Consolidation of actions

factors to be considered

application for consolidation to be made as soon as apparent that necessary or desirable—court may take into account any delay in making application in deciding whether to exercise discretion to consolidate under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.31: Prism Architectural Ltd. v. Jubilee General 2 Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [26]

court to exercise discretion to consolidate actions under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.31 in order to deal with cases justly—to consider, inter alia, whether actions raise common questions of fact or law and involve same evidence—to decide on balance whether additional cost incurred by one party outweighs risk of inconsistent decisions if separate actions—no consolidation, e.g. if sums claimed in actions vastly different and causes one plaintiff to incur costs greater than those initially expects to recover: Prism Architectural Ltd. v. Jubilee General 2 Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [26]

in deciding whether to exercise discretion to consolidate actions under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.31, to bear in mind that risk of inconsistent decisions as result of separate actions may be minimized by effective case management—preferable that case management undertaken by same judge who presides over substantive hearing: Prism Architectural Ltd. v. Jubilee General 2 Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [26]

Constitution of court. See Stay of execution—constitution of court. COURTS (Royal Court—Jurats)

Costs

abuse of process. See Costs—indemnity basis

advocate’s personal liability for costs. See ADVOCATES (Costs—personal liability)

advocates’ fees

maximum recoverable rate provided in Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Costs and Fees) (Guernsey) Rules 2012, r.3(2) unless court orders otherwise, which is rare—no uplift justified in case concerning dissolution of limited partnership—value of claim (US$23m.) not huge; legislation (Limited Partnerships (Guernsey) Law 1995) not new; and trial of 9 or 10 days not extraordinary: In re CRGF LP (C.A.), 2023 GLR 378

appeal against costs

Court of Appeal extremely reluctant to interfere with Royal Court’s discretion as to costs—Court of Appeal awarded plaintiffs costs of defendant’s unsuccessful counterclaim, as no rational basis for Royal Court’s failure to do so: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 128

if unquantified costs “matter in dispute” on appeal to Privy Council, no appeal as of right under court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16 even if likely or certain that will exceed £500 when quantified: Guernsey Intl. Trustees Ltd. v. Virani (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [4]

appeal costs

no rule that costs not awarded in appeals in family proceedings but, in exercise of broad discretion, court may choose not to order costs if both parties have limited incomes and order would cause extreme hardship: E v. E (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 133

security for costs

circumstances justifying order for security on appeal to be truly special and court to proceed with great caution—interests of protecting respondent from being put to irrecoverable expense of defending hopeless appeal may outweigh appellant’s right to pursue hopeless appeal: Shelton v. Barby (C.A.), 2015 GLR 84

considerations on appeal different from those at first instance—appellant will then have had his “day in court”—easier for appeal court to form view of merits—court prefers test for ordering security on appeal to move towards refusing order if weak case, even towards one with no realistic prospect of success: Shelton v. Barby (C.A.), 2015 GLR 84

correct approach on appeal to look at case in the round, to see if special circumstances and whether or not right to order security—overall justice of case, parties’ interests and administration of justice generally major considerations: Shelton v. Barby (C.A.), 2015 GLR 84

decision whether to order security to balance appellant’s right of access to appeal court against respondent’s right not to be subjected to expensive proceedings, probably at own expense—court to consider parties’ overall conduct of litigation, e.g. flouting court procedures, inclination to litigate expeditiously: Shelton v. Barby (C.A.), 2015 GLR 84

may be ordered if no evidence of applicant’s financial hardship, able to instruct advocates, and no evidence that ordering security would stifle appeal: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 383

may be ordered unless appellant shows resources insufficient to meet costs order against him—if insufficient, court to balance injustice in stifling potentially meritorious claim against injustice to respondent of being unable to recover costs of successful defence—to inquire into grounds of appeal to ascertain that genuine and, if so, not normally to make order stifling appeal: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [25]

no “impairing of essence” of right of access to courts guaranteed by European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6 by making order for security for costs on appeal, especially since substantive merits of appeal examined before making order: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [25]

“special circumstances” in Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12(5) justifying order for security include appellant’s impecuniosity or residence outside jurisdiction, if appeal abuse of process or vexatious, or real danger respondent unable to enforce costs order—discretion to refuse order if fair overall to do so—appellant to make full and frank disclosure of assets if alleges order would stifle appeal: Smith v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2013 GLR 260

“special circumstances” under Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12(5)—impecuniosity not by itself “special circumstance” permitting order for security on appeal—to be put in context—meritorious appeal could be stymied by lack of means, impairing very essence of right of access to appeal court: Shelton v. Barby (C.A.), 2015 GLR 84

apportionment

“costs follow event” no longer conclusive principle but starting point from which court may easily depart if necessary—to be more prepared to adopt issue-based approach making separate costs orders for different issues: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 323

if precise apportionment of costs between issues difficult because evidence not limited to discrete individual issues, court has discretion to apportion by ordering payment of percentage of overall costs: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 323

claim for costs

mere claim for costs cannot of itself found cause of action and thus not registrable under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.6 in Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

costs as damages

recoverable as damages if claimant can show e.g. disruption of business, loss of profit or increased costs in undertaking project as direct result of engaging in litigation: Woodbourne Trustees Ltd. v. Generali Worldwide Ins. Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [6]

recoverable as damages if person causing loss, as reasonable man, could have foreseen that loss liable to result—no damages if merely for inevitable expense of liaising with lawyers to ensure efficient course of action: Woodbourne Trustees Ltd. v. Generali Worldwide Ins. Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [6]

“costs follow event.” See Costs—discretion of court

costs “of and incidental to” proceedings. See Costs—discretion of court

counterclaim

on appeal, plaintiffs awarded costs of defendant’s unsuccessful counterclaim, as no rational basis not to do so: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 128

discretion of court

court may exercise discretion to make costs order if substantive issues already resolved out of court but disagreement remains as to costs—principles to be applied: Maurice v. States of Alderney (Chief Executive) (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [7]

Court of Appeal has full discretion as to appeal costs under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.18(1)—no express power under 1961 Law to make orders as to costs in Royal Court, but may do so pursuant to s.14(2): In re CRGF LP (C.A.), 2023 GLR 378

discretion as to costs under Royal Court (Costs and Fees) (Guernsey) Law 1969, s.1(1) relates to costs “of and incidental to” proceedings before court—costs incurred before commencement of proceedings not incidental to proceedings: EEA Fund Management (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Coventry Capital US LLC (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 145

general principle that costs follow event—presumption that costs order made in favour of successful party: EEA Fund Management (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Coventry Capital US LLC (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 145

general rule that bank interpleading entitled to recover costs from disputed funds in account, but court has discretion to allow—may be allowed after interpleader commences, e.g. costs of making inquiries required by court or attending hearings—decision on costs before interpleader commences may be deferred until case resolved if then clear whether recoverable from disputed funds or bank’s own liability: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 285

no automatic rule that recovering less than offer to settle penalizes plaintiff in costs—court to consider which party, in substance and reality, has won—to take into account not only financial value of judgment but also any irrecoverable costs involved and stress and anxiety of pursuing action—plaintiff failing to obtain judgment overall “more advantageous” than offer rejected may be penalized: Buckley v. Ronez Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 120

no case for issue-based costs if party effectively fails to win any of issues relied upon—“costs follow event” if related foreign proceedings by Guernsey party fail, in same way as when Guernsey proceedings fail: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

principles governing exercise of discretion—“costs follow event” no longer conclusive principle but starting point from which court may easily depart if necessary—to be more prepared to adopt issue-based approach, making separate costs orders for different issues: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 323

questions involving enforcement of foreign applications always civil in nature, even though arise out of criminal proceedings in foreign jurisdiction—costs therefore awarded as in civil case in discretion of court and likely to “follow event”—may be awarded against H.M. Procureur if seeks restraint order wider than requested by foreign authorities and prima facie outside court’s jurisdiction: King v. H.M. Procureur (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 285

successful litigant’s entitlement to costs not dependent on other litigant’s ability to pay: Chick v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (Royal Ct.), 2021 GLR N [3]

executors and administrators. See SUCCESSION (Costs)

family proceedings. See FAMILY LAW (Financial provision—costs)

fee-earners. See Costs—taxation of costs

foreign lawyers’ costs

appellant permitted to recover from respondent reasonable fees of London counsel (not exceeding maximum recoverable rate in Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Costs and Fees) (Guernsey) Rules 2012, r.3(2)) in providing continuity in handover from appellant’s former to present advocates—appellant not to recover any further fees in respect of London counsel researching English law or attending hearings, as litigation concerned Guernsey statute: In re CRGF LP (C.A.), 2023 GLR 378

may be recoverable if case involves many documents where external assistance might be cost-effective; proceedings involve consideration of principles of foreign law; case concerns novel area of law and seeking assistance from foreign lawyers cost-effective; foreign litigants had long-established relationships with foreign lawyers; or necessary to obtain specialist advice: EEA Fund Management (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Coventry Capital US LLC (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 145

hourly rates. See Costs—taxation of costs

indemnity basis

award may be on indemnity basis if party prolongs litigation opportunistically to obtain more favourable outcome—trustee ignoring dismissal by protector, attempting to remove protector, seeking costs, indemnity and security wider than allowed by law or terms of trust may be ordered to pay costs of unjustified litigation on indemnity basis: Virani v. Guernsey Intl. Trustees Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 472

circumstances in which Court of Appeal prepared to award costs against party on indemnity basis under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1861, s.18(1) reflect those under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)—court may order indemnity costs against party if pleaded, pursued or defended action, claim or contribution unreasonably, scandalously, frivolously or vexatiously, or otherwise abused process of court: Stuart-Hutcheson v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [19]

company ordered to pay objecting shareholders’ costs on indemnity basis of company’s unsuccessful appeal against Royal Court’s refusal to sanction proposed scheme for compulsory purchase by it of all minority shares—distinction between ordinary adversarial litigation and application for court’s sanction of proposed scheme of arrangement—similar to non-adversarial trust litigation: Puma Brandenburg Ltd. v. Aralon Res. & Inv. Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2017 GLR 173

costs may be awarded on indemnity basis if conduct of action by party or circumstances of case takes case out of norm and justifies order for indemnity costs—usually unreasonableness: EEA Fund Management (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Coventry Capital US LLC (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 145

costs may be awarded on indemnity basis if defendant conducts litigation reprehensibly, fails reasonably to make counter-offer to settle in response to plaintiff’s offer, makes wholly unjustified allegation of plaintiff’s bad faith and only withdraws it at last minute, or unreasonably fails to disclose documents: Woodbourne Trustees Ltd. v. Generali Worldwide Ins. Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [6]

costs may be awarded on indemnity basis in special circumstances, e.g. if successful application by non-vested beneficiary properly raises question of Guernsey law, answer necessary for trust administration, affects all such beneficiaries, and would have justified application by trustee: Stuart-Hutcheson v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [19]

costs may be ordered on indemnity basis if party’s conduct unreasonable or abuse of process: Hulme v. Matheson Secs. (Channel Islands) Ltd. (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 65

court’s power under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 1989, s.65(4) to award costs out of trust property includes award to beneficiary on full indemnity basis in appropriate, special circumstances: Stuart-Hutcheson v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [19]

inadequacy of recoverable costs not “special circumstance” within meaning of Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(a) justifying indemnity costs—“special circumstances” usually concern conduct of party—inadequacy of costs only relevant so far as exacerbates effect or seriousness of impugned conduct: Silver Falcon Enterprises Ltd. v. Cochrane (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [12]

indemnity basis means party required to pay all costs claimed, unless unreasonably high or unreasonably incurred—everything included if not driven out by exclusion: Zekavica v. Stefani (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [1]

indemnity costs may be ordered if party makes scandalous allegation immaterial to claim—scandalous if unbecoming for court to hear, contrary to good manners, or allegation of criminal wrongdoing (unless material to claim): Zekavica v. Stefani (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [1]

order of costs on indemnity basis against trustee personally if unreasonable conduct of litigation, e.g. making late interlocutory applications in attempt to derail appeal: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 128

rules applicable in Seneschal’s Court. See Costs—rules applicable in Seneschal’s Court

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(a), incident occurring at sea not of itself “special circumstance” in which court may order costs on indemnity basis, as otherwise all such incidents would attract indemnity costs—seriously inadequate or no payment into court could constitute “special circumstance,” e.g. when court considering adequacy of offers to settle claim: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(b), costs may be awarded on full indemnity basis if defendant defends action unreasonably, e.g. because irrefutable evidence of negligence, and causes plaintiff to incur irrecoverable costs—no costs on indemnity basis against defendant merely for defending point misguidedly or unnecessarily pursued: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(b), costs may be awarded on full indemnity basis if defendant makes unreasonable or no offer to settle before all evidence given, and defendant primarily responsible for unreasonable conduct of proceedings, e.g. in personal injury claim if defendant’s insurers in “run-off,” but made no payment into court, and plaintiff’s medical evidence unlikely to be challenged: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(b), costs may be awarded on partial indemnity basis if defendant’s conduct in defending action not reprehensible enough for full indemnity, e.g. if aware of expert witness’s unavailability on date of trial but does not inform court until end of directions hearing, and strong evidence of defendant’s negligence and liability, but party’s expert witness concludes no liability—defence justified, since unusual to pay no attention to expert evidence: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

interpleader relief. See Interpleader relief—costs

issue-based approach. See Costs—discretion of court

joint and several liability

order that present and original trustees jointly and severally liable for costs of present trustee’s unsuccessful claim overturned on appeal as original trustees had no involvement in claim (which was in fact adverse to their interests): Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 128

jurisdiction

applicant submits to Grand Court’s jurisdiction to order costs if applies to court and responds to objections, even if primary litigation unconnected with Guernsey—court may order costs even if applicant has no funds in Guernsey: Universal Trading & Inv. Co. Inc. v. Bassington Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [12]

restriction preventing reimbursement of costs for “execution” of letter of request under Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, art. 14 not to include challenge to letter of request, whether during initial or subsequent hearing—costs may be ordered against applicant even if no connection to any State: Universal Trading & Inv. Co. Inc. v. Bassington Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [12]

under Royal Court (Costs and Fees) (Guernsey) Law 1969, s.1(1), entitled to order costs in all proceedings, even if not commenced by tabling of cause—not restricted by Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82: Universal Trading & Inv. Co. Inc. v. Bassington Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [12]

litigants in person

fact that unsuccessful party is litigant in person not good reason not to make costs order against him: Chick v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (Royal Ct.), 2021 GLR N [3]

if advocate involved in litigation in personal capacity chooses to act as litigant in person, will be so treated by court—if advocate instructs firm in which partner or employed, client–advocate relationship arises: Lovering v. Atkinson Ferbrache Richardson Advocates & Notaries Public (Royal Ct.), 2018 GLR N [1]

litigant in person unable to recover costs for time spent in preparing and presenting case, as measured by lost earnings during that time—“witness” not in this context to include party to proceedings (Royal Court (Costs & Fees) Rules 2012, r.10) so as to permit payment of witness allowance (r.3) to cover costs of litigant in person: Neal v. Featherstone (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [3]

security for costs. See Costs—security for costs

offer to settle

inadequate but not unreasonable offer to settle made by defendant may attract award of costs on standard recoverable basis rather than indemnity basis, e.g. if plaintiff’s lack of energy in pursuing proceedings mainly responsible for delay—in claim for negligence arising from collision at sea, constitution of limitation fund under Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 in defendant’s favour in determining basis for costs: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(4)(b), costs may be awarded on full indemnity basis if defendant makes no offer to settle before all evidence given, or defendant’s offer to settle claim unreasonable and woefully inadequate and defendant primarily responsible for failing to follow reasonable course of conduct, e.g. in personal injury claim if insurers in “run-off,” but he has not made payment into court, and plaintiff’s medical evidence unlikely to be challenged: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs”

less significant than payment into court or offer to settle made under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.62—nonetheless, always important and court to consider what weight to give it in circumstances of case: Buckley v. Ronez Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 120

pre-judgment interest

Court of Appeal has no power to award pre-judgment interest on costs: In re CRGF LP (C.A.), 2023 GLR 378

prospective costs. See TRUSTS (Costs—prospective costs)

quantification. See Costs—appeal against costs

registration of order

only registrable without leave of court if “final judgment in the proceedings” within meaning of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.6—if no final substantive judgment, leave required for registration: Wrench v. Albany Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [20]

rules applicable in Seneschal’s Court

award of costs on indemnity basis to be interpreted in Sark with guidance of Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.83(2)(b) as justifiable if action pursued unreasonably, scandalously, frivolously or vexatiously, or otherwise abuse of process—not “unreasonable” for cause to be initiated broadly and narrowed down before trial, nor for plaintiffs to retain experienced Guernsey firm, compelling defendants with limited funds to seek more expensive legal advice from Guernsey and England: Barclay v. Latrobe-Bateman (Seneschal’s Ct., Sark), 2009–10 GLR N [1]

only provision governing costs in Seneschal’s Court is discretion given by Reform (Sark) Law 2008, s.18(1) to determine “by whom” and “to what extent” costs to be paid—court to exercise discretion judicially in circumstances of each case, following practice of Royal Court of Guernsey—full or partial indemnity costs, or costs on recoverable basis may be awarded as appropriate: Barclay v. Latrobe-Bateman (Seneschal’s Ct., Sark), 2009–10 GLR N [1]

security for costs

calculation of security—in calculating cost of proceedings to date, legitimate to take into account that, in recent Guernsey commercial litigation, costs claimed reduced on taxation by 35–45%—in respect of cost of continuing proceedings, court to have regard to what stage they have reached, e.g. not yet at case management conference stage—may make estimate of notional additional cost before proceedings completed: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

claims brought by insolvent company and joint liquidators as co-plaintiffs—no security for costs ordered—liquidators (against whom order for security for costs not appropriate) were real plaintiff; company (against which security for costs prima facie just) included in nominal capacity so that proceedings properly constituted—security not ordered simply because would not stifle claim: Bowles v. Joannou (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 356

Court of Appeal has discretion to refuse security for costs under Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12(5) if fair overall to do so: Smith v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2013 GLR 260

defendant’s belief that corporate plaintiff will be unable to pay costs if ordered to do so—not enough to show might not be able to pay—must show justification for belief that will be unable to pay—balance-sheet insolvency prima facie justification but court may recognize overall solvency of group of which plaintiff company parent, if able to arrange affairs so that can provide security: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

in absence of Guernsey authority, normal to follow English authority and CPR on providing security—under CPR, r.25.13(2), may consider plaintiff’s residency outside jurisdiction; reason to believe corporate plaintiff will be unable to pay its debts; whether individual plaintiff has taken steps in relation to his assets making it difficult to enforce order for costs against him: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

in absence of Guernsey authority on application in respect of foreign plaintiff, court may follow modern English authorities—under CPR, r.25.13, if “reason to believe” plaintiff unable to pay defendant’s costs if required, may order security if just in circumstances—under r.25.12, application to be supported by written evidence, though court to take note of obvious realities not backed by formal evidence: Ashdene Consultants Ltd. v. Bachmann Group Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [22]

individual plaintiff taking steps in relation to his assets making it difficult to enforce costs order against him—changing form of assets not necessarily culpable—not culpable if plaintiff changes from sole trader to wholly family-owned company with debenture in favour of plaintiff if still able to access funds: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

may make individual and corporate co-plaintiffs jointly liable for security in equal shares if “just” to do so under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82—co-plaintiffs may choose to divide liability unequally: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

order for security justified if company has no assets and dependent on personal resources of director to fund proceedings and meet adverse costs order: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 221

party seeking security to indicate which costs estimated and which already incurred—on further application, to update bill to reflect estimated and actual costs at time when considered by court—if bill not updated, court to adopt as realistic a view as possible on existing material, including quantum of sum claimed: Ashdene Consultants Ltd. v. Bachmann Group Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [22]

quantum—“broad brush” exercise—starting point is broad assessment of likely level of costs awarded on taxation on recoverable basis—Guernsey advocates’ maximum recoverable fees limited under Royal Court (Costs and Fees) Rules 2012, r.2(2)—English lawyers’ fees incurred in Guernsey litigation are disbursements, not subject to taxation as Guernsey advocates’ fees—in respect of English lawyers’ fees, question is reasonableness: Bowles v. Joannou (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 356

rarely appropriate to order security for costs when individual litigant unrepresented in proceedings against public body—desirable to minimize procedural demands on individual to ensure right of recourse to court not thwarted: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR N [6]

Royal Court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs against non-party (Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82(1)(b)), therefore no inherent jurisdiction to make disclosure order to give it efficacy—no jurisdiction to order disclosure of non-party funder’s identity at interlocutory stage: Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 208

security on appeal. See Costs—appeal costs

“special circumstances”

appeal costs. See Costs—appeal costs

in Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12(5) justifying order for security include appellant’s impecuniosity or residence outside jurisdiction, if appeal abuse of process or vexatious, or real danger respondent unable to enforce costs order—discretion to refuse order if fair overall to do so—appellant to make full and frank disclosure of assets if alleges order would stifle appeal: Smith v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2013 GLR 260

time of payment of security—security required in immediate future—if corporate plaintiff balance-sheet insolvent and form of assets such that unable to realize them before some uncertain future time, may in itself indicate that unable to pay costs if ordered: Fairhead v. Praxis Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [4]

to avoid satellite dispute successful party permitted to retain security pending determination of related proceedings: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 376

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.48(2), court may either stay proceedings until security provided, or if deadline set and missed, may dismiss proceedings—striking out may be appropriate in r.48 application if security not lodged by set date, e.g. if considerable delay and no credible evidence that respondent cannot afford to provide security: Shamurin v. Base Metal Trading Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [19]

under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82, court may order security for costs as thinks “just”—starting point that not ordered without more against individuals who are genuine plaintiffs, but presumption in favour of ordering security against corporate plaintiffs if real possibility unable to pay adverse costs orders: Bowles v. Joannou (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 356

stay of application

successful party’s application for costs stayed pending determination of related proceedings: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 376

taxation of costs

bill of costs stating hours per item but not stating recoverable hourly rates of fee-earners—court to decide reasonableness of rates in favour of paying party—may reduce recoverable rate to estimated rate at time work done, with proportionate reduction for fee-earners remunerated at lower rates: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [2]

“research”—no allowance normally made for “researching the law” in ordinary proceedings—discretion under Royal Court Costs and Fees Rules 2000, r.7.1 permits allowance for extra “research” in novel specialized proceedings and for specialist knowledge and experience of advocate: Barrett v. Environment Dept. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [3]

trusts. See TRUSTS (Costs)

wasted costs

alternatives—court always to consider whether action for professional negligence or disciplinary proceedings more appropriate than wasted costs order—not to fear diminishing legal profession’s public stature in Island: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

causation—dereliction of duty must cause waste of costs, i.e. costs would not have been wasted “but for” dereliction of duty—intervention of prescription under foreign law before péremption in Guernsey irrelevant if both caused by same dereliction of duty, e.g. failure to comply with court order requiring formal steps in proceedings within specified time: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

opportunity to be heard—advocate facing wasted costs application to have opportunity to answer allegations against him—court to weigh whether costs at stake (balanced against complexity of decision) justify contested determination of application—in absence of authority, principles of English CPR, r.46.8(2) and Practice Direction 46, para. 5.7 to be broadly followed in Guernsey: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

purpose of order both punitive (to punish unacceptable conduct by advocates and encourage best practice in legal profession) and compensatory (to compensate party to legal proceedings for expenses incurred unnecessarily through fault of advocates)—both purposes to be present before wasted costs order made: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

summary trial

danger of inconsistent rulings by different courts if party incurring costs subsequently decides to proceed against advocate for professional negligence—no inconsistency possible if summary decision makes no finding of actual negligence: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

wasted costs application to be heard summarily unless too complex and contentious—need for further documentary disclosure, oral evidence, or further cross-examination of previous witnesses indicates that application not suitable for summary trial—exercise of summary jurisdiction exclusively concerned with court’s control over litigation and decision not summary ruling in negligence action: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

threshold test

advocate to be guilty of serious dereliction of duty to court—“serious dereliction of duty” equated with gross negligence or gross neglect—mere negligence insufficient—duty owed to court not client: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

not necessary to show inordinate or inexcusable delay in prosecuting proceedings but “serious dereliction of duty to court” may involve either or both—non-compliance with court order or rules of court in principle serious enough but not every incompetent act or omission by advocate sufficient—trial court to decide whether threshold test satisfied: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

withdrawal of exception de forme

plaintiff awarded costs following defendant’s late withdrawal of exception—indemnity costs not justified where exception not tactical ploy to delay proceedings, not pleaded unreasonably, scandalously, frivolously or vexatiously and not abuse of process of court: Heath Invs. Ltd. v. Watson (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 246

“without prejudice as to costs”. See Costs—offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs”

Counterclaim

costs. See Costs—counterclaim

grounds for winding up. See COMPANIES (Compulsory winding up—grounds for winding up)

placing on pleading list

Act of Court ordering counterclaim to be placed on pleading list registrable under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.6 in Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations with leave of court, creating priority charge over respondent’s interest in any Guernsey property—if property jointly owned, co-owner may be granted leave to intervene: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

claim for declaration in counterclaim valid form of substantive relief for which Act of Court may be registered notwithstanding no other relief sought, whether or not any claim for consequential relief (including costs)—mere claim for costs cannot of itself found cause of action and thus not registrable: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

Damages. See Costs—costs as damages

Declarations. See Judgments and orders—declaration

Defendant. See Parties—defendant

Delay. See Adjournment—factors to be considered. Dismissal for want of prosecution—delay. Pleading—amendment. INJUNCTIONS (Interlocutory injunctions—principles to be applied)

Delay in delivery of judgment. See Judgments and orders—delivery of judgment

Delivery of judgment. See Judgments and orders—delivery of judgment

Development by inherent jurisdiction. See COURTS (Court of Alderney—jurisdiction), (Royal Court—jurisdiction)

Directions for conduct of action. See Case management—directions for conduct of action

Disclosure

ancillary disclosure order

judgment debt. See Judgments and orders—judgment debt

Royal Court has no jurisdiction to order disclosure of non-party funder’s identity at interlocutory stage—no jurisdiction to order security for costs against non-party (Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82(1)(b)), therefore no inherent jurisdiction to make disclosure order to give it efficacy: Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 208

ancillary to freezing order. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders—ancillary disclosure)

disclosure to foreign court. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Recognition of foreign proceedings—judgment in personam)

duty of confidentiality. See TRUSTS (Powers and duties of trustees—duty of confidentiality)

inspection of documents

litigation privilege

communications between parties or lawyers and third parties for purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with existing or contemplated litigation privileged if (a) litigation in progress or in contemplation (i.e. real likelihood of litigation); (b) communications made for sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation; and (c) litigation adversarial, not investigative or inquisitorial—test for litigation privilege fact sensitive: Rodrigues v. Stanley Gibbons Group plc (Royal Ct.), 2023 GLR N [1]

where documents disclosed by defendant, plaintiff has qualified right to inspect them which defendant can resist only on grounds under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.64: Rodrigues v. Stanley Gibbons Group plc (Royal Ct.), 2023 GLR N [1]

jurisdiction to order disclosure

discretion under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 1987, Part I to order disclosure ancillary to freezing order—more readily made to support proprietary claim, but also available to support monetary claims: Seed Intl. Ltd. v. Tracey (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 98

Mareva injunction. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders)

Norwich Pharmacal order

application for Norwich Pharmacal order may be heard ex parte, e.g. if publicly sensitive documents involved, alleged wrongdoer not necessary party to application and third party in possession of documents sought to be disclosed: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

designed for use mainly in support of proprietary rather than merely monetary claims—if applicant seeks to trace source of or dealings with assets, court to be wary that information not stale and unhelpful—pursuit of wrongdoer’s contacts only permitted if court requires strict concealment of identity to prevent prejudice and possible victimization: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 73

discretion of court

applicant to show order “essential and necessary” to assist in achieving justice—especially important for protection of (usually) innocent third party and, if innocent party is bank, order interferes with obligation of strict confidentiality owed to customers: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

ex parte order made only when grounds clear and situation urgent, since provides applicant with all information required without having to go to full trial: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

no difference in substance whether test for making order phrased as “essential and necessary” to assist in achieving justice, or “just and convenient” to do so: Equatorial Guinea (President) v. Royal Bank of Scotland Intl. (P.C.), 2005–06 GLR 373

information sought—wide ranging, e.g. identity of wrongdoers, existence or nature of wrongdoing, location of assets upon which to enforce judgment: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

involvement of third party

involvement in “wrongdoing” of another to be construed in widest sense and need not be sufficient to join as party—involvement frequently innocent: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

third party innocently mixed up in wrongdoing of another has duty to disclose documents if assists victim/applicant in obtaining remedy—order extends beyond identifying wrongdoer to disclosure of documents relating to applicant’s cause of action: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

“mere witness” rule—normally no disclosure against mere witness simply for purpose of obtaining pre-trial disclosure of evidence to be given at trial: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

party innocently mixed up in wrongdoing of another has duty to assist victim by disclosing as much information as justice requires to assist victim in obtaining remedy—order not limited to identifying wrongdoer but may be used to seek disclosure of methodology of wrongdoing, tracing, location and preservation of funds: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 73

proceedings assisted

Guernsey court has duty to examine details of proposed foreign proceedings to see whether plausible enough to justify granting assistance; whether justifications for civil claim genuine or merely cover for securing information to use in criminal proceedings; and whether court can hope to have control over use of information disclosed: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

power to make orders to assist foreign proceedings, if necessary and appropriate to help achieve justice—exercise of such powers essential in Guernsey given importance of financial services and desirability of avoiding dishonest investors: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

sufficient if legitimate interest to protect by law either by seeking redress or preventing recurrence—may be civil proceedings or other legitimate purpose, e.g. disciplinary proceedings—need not have been commenced or actually intended at time of application for relief: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

purposes for which disclosure sought—applicant to identify purposes for which disclosure to be used—court then able to restrict use of material for disclosed purposes: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

succession—under Ecclesiastical Court (Jurisdiction) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1994, s.3 and inherent jurisdiction, Royal Court has duty to right injustice caused by Ecclesiastical Court’s inadvertently assisting fraud by granting probate—Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure of related Ecclesiastical Court documents may be appropriate, but cases to be considered on own merits: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

test of necessity—procedure of last resort only available if disclosure necessary to start proceedings against wrongdoer and impossible to obtain information by other means—application premature if proceedings not imminent: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 73

“wrongdoing”—party seeking disclosure to identify wrongdoing on which application based, at least generally—to be wrongful in law, either criminal or infringement of civil right capable of being protected by suit: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

order assisting enforcement of judgment debt. See Judgments and orders—judgment debt

scope of disclosure

exceptionally, if strong case, may order disclosure of information about defendant’s assets and accounts wider than associated freezing order—strong case if evidence of defendant’s movement of Guernsey funds internationally—extended scope may assist in maintaining high standard of probity of Guernsey financial services industry and not as “safe haven” for those evading legal liability: Seed Intl. Ltd. v. Tracey (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 98

setting aside

burden of proof on plaintiff to satisfy court that disclosure order to be upheld, not on defendant to show order to be set aside—plaintiff to show good, arguable case, real and sufficiently serious risk that defendant’s Guernsey assets would be dissipated abroad, and that just and convenient to uphold orders: Seed Intl. Ltd. v. Tracey (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 98

specific disclosure

documents or class of documents of which specific disclosure sought to be relevant and precisely defined: Popat v. Popat (Royal Ct.), 2021 GLR 295

support of foreign proceedings

disclosure appropriate if substantive proceedings in another jurisdiction without power to order disclosure and extensive international movement of Guernsey funds by defendant: Seed Intl. Ltd. v. Tracey (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 98

trusts. See TRUSTS (Beneficiaries—rights), (Powers and duties of trustees—duty of confidentiality), (Powers and duties of trustees—duty to give information to beneficiaries)

Discontinuance of action. See Péremption

Discovery

affidavit of compliance

affidavit creates presumption that discovery complete—rebuttable by counter-affidavit showing that prima facie incomplete—may then order further and better discovery supported by affidavit which is conclusive and beyond further challenge: Seymour v. MacDonald (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 107

challenging discovery

may challenge scope of disclosure by applying for affidavit confirming that discovery obligations fully complied with—confirmation creates presumption that discovery complete but rebuttable by counter-affidavit showing that disclosure prima facie incomplete—court may then order further and better discovery supported by affidavit which is conclusive and beyond further challenge: Seymour v. MacDonald (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 107

exercise of court’s discretion

in absence of direct guidance as to exercise of discretion under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.41(2), court may look to principles under English RSC, O.24, r.13: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

may refuse application for discovery under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.41(2) if (a) constitutes unacceptable “fishing expedition” for information in documents which would destroy opposition’s case when finding such information not guaranteed; (b) additional time and cost disproportionate, given essential issues in interlocutory hearing; and (c) substantial number of documents relevant to interlocutory hearing already produced: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

refusal of application for discovery potentially resulting in applicant’s removal from company directorship may be persuasive argument, on balance of convenience, for granting application, but court may still refuse if disclosures sought not necessary to support his case: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

to allow application for discovery under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.41(2), “reference” in affidavit to document must be direct allusion or express reference to document or class of documents—court may nevertheless refuse application for discovery if unnecessary or causes premature disclosure of documents: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

factors to be considered

in absence of relevant provisions in Royal Court Civil Rules 1989 relating to discovery and inspection of documents, court may have regard to English Rules of Supreme Court, O.24 and relevant authorities: A v. A (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 461

form of discovery

if application in defective form, court may treat as if properly made to enable speedy resolution of matters in issue: Hammerschmidt v. Barclays Bank PLC (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [8]

privilege. See ADVOCATES (Professional privilege—legal advice privilege), (Professional privilege—litigation privilege). EVIDENCE (Privilege)

purpose of discovery

though not specifically stated in Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, discovery either for disposing fairly of cause or saving costs—if specific discovery granted for first reason, court need not consider disjunctive question of saving costs: Piette (Norman) Ltd. v. Hochtief Constr. (UK) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 50

“reference” to documents

to justify order for disclosure of document under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.41(2), “reference” to document in pleadings or affidavits must be direct allusion or express reference to document or class of documents—sufficient if makes compendious reference to documents, identifying by character or location in manner clearly distinguishing them from other material referred to: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.41(2), “reference” to be given ordinary meaning and not include reference by inference—insufficient for reference merely to give reader strong grounds to suspect existence of particular document: Klabin v. Technocom Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 439

specific discovery

applicant for specific discovery to show that documents sought are relevant, in existence, and are or have been in respondent’s possession, custody or power: A v. A (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 461

entire contract—if part of contract disclosed by voluntary discovery but balance withheld without explanation, may order specific discovery of balance if risk that Jurats would otherwise obtain distorted view of facts: Piette (Norman) Ltd. v. Hochtief Constr. (UK) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 50

“reference” to documents. See Discovery—“reference” to documents

test of relevance

may seek discovery under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.39(1) of every document relating to “any matter in question between them in the proceedings”—includes documents which would be evidence on any issue, or which contain information advancing own case or damaging opponents, even if merely lead to train of enquiry: Piette (Norman) Ltd. v. Hochtief Constr. (UK) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 50

time for discovery

no discovery of documents ordered before issues defined in pleadings unless, exceptionally, in interests of justice, speed or costs saving—not to be ordered before defence filed if applicant has sufficient material to formulate defence, since not legitimate exercise of discovery process to construct defence: Hammerschmidt v. Barclays Bank PLC (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [8]

Discretion of court. See Costs—discretion of court

Dismissal for want of prosecution

delay

in considering strike-out application where delay, court to consider prejudicial effect on either party—to consider issues in case, evidence availability and type, time elapsed since relevant events, degree of prejudice (likely to have been) suffered before cause tabled, and whether substantial risk that fair trial not possible: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [29]

in considering strike-out application where delay, defendant to establish inordinate delay—delay may be before and/or after tabling of cause—generally plaintiff who must establish reasonable excuse for inordinate delay—if no reasonable excuse given, defendant to establish substantial prejudice as result: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [29]

inordinate and inexcusable delay, before and after cause placed on Roll, of 22 months sufficient to justify striking out claim if serious prejudice to defendants/substantial risk that fair trial impossible—court may rely on aggregate of several shorter delays—substantial prejudice/risk of unfairness if delay exacerbates fading memories of trial witnesses—delay caused by illness potentially excusable—delay caused by defendant’s failure to agree revised pleadings not excusable if plaintiff could have remitted matter to court for further directions, as onus on him to advance case: Silver Falcon Enterprises Ltd. v. Cochrane (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 116

to justify dismissal, burden on defendant to establish serious prejudice caused by delay—whether prejudice “serious” depends on facts—if plaintiff already taken full advantage of delay permitted by prescription period, further prejudice beyond minimal may be “serious”: Scanfield Ltd. v. Carr (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [16]

to justify dismissal, delay to be inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial to defendant: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [15]

to justify dismissal, delay to be inordinate, inexcusable and seriously prejudicial to defendant, giving rise to substantial risk that no fair trial possible—burden on defendant to show inordinate delay and serious prejudice—plaintiff then to show reasonable excuse for delay: Scanfield Ltd. v. Carr (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [16]

to justify dismissal, delay to be materially longer than time courts and legal profession regard as acceptable—whether delay “inordinate” depends on facts—if delay inordinate, usually also inexcusable: Scanfield Ltd. v. Carr (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [16]

relationship to péremption

only rarely can court strike out for want of prosecution (under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36(1)) and at same time logically believe that action should be restored to roll (under r.50) if périmé after a year and a day without proceeding—similar test for both procedures, i.e. whether delay excusable or prejudicial: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [15]

Dismissal without hearing. See Abuse of process—control by court. Case management—appeal

Election between judgments. See Abuse of process—election between judgments

Élection de domicile. See Service out of jurisdiction—élection de domicile

Ex parte applications

anti-suit injunctions. See INJUNCTIONS (Anti-suit injunction)

need for review

evolution of practice of ex parte applications in Guernsey unsatisfactory—desirable for Royal Court to re-assess and advise Bar accordingly: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

principles to be applied

(a) grounds for making order to be sufficiently clear; and (b) imperative need for order to be made immediately and urgently to preserve status quo pending inter partes hearing between disputing parties: Systems Design Ltd. v. Equatorial Guinea (President) (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 65

Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

Norwich Pharmacal order—application for Norwich Pharmacal order may be heard ex parte, e.g. if publicly sensitive documents involved, alleged wrongdoer not necessary party to application and third party in possession of documents sought to be disclosed: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

restraint orders

ex parte application to be made in chambers—full record of proceedings to be made to enable court hearing inter partes proceedings to ascertain arguments on ex parte application: King v. H.M. Procureur (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 285

Exception de forme

withdrawal

Exceptions de fond

procedure

although exception usually to be pleaded before cause inscribed on Rôle, Royal Court and Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to allow amendment to plead exception any time before final judgment if justice requires: Smith v. States Education Council (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 350

validity

exception not valid if cause as pleaded discloses admissible facts which, construed reasonably in favour of plaintiff, could be proved at trial so as to allow him to succeed: Yaddehige v. Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 282

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses. See Trial of preliminary issue—exclusive jurisdiction clauses. CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisdiction—exclusive jurisdiction clauses). INJUNCTIONS (Anti-suit injunction)

Execution

judgment debt. See Judgments and orders—judgment debt

stay of execution. See Stay of execution

Exercise of discretion. See Appeals—appeals against exercise of discretion

Expedited hearing. See Appeals—expedited hearing

Extension of time. See Appeals—extension of time for appeal. Compliance with court order—extension of time. Pleading—amendment

Extension of time for appeal. See Appeals—setting down appeal

Fair trial. See HUMAN RIGHTS (Right to fair trial)

Final vesting orders. See Saisie—interim vesting order

Finality of decisions. See Judgments and orders—finality

Foreign lawyers’ costs. See Costs—foreign lawyers’ costs

Forfeiture. See Proceeds of unlawful conduct—forfeiture

Format of orders on appeal. See Judgments and orders—format of orders on appeal

Forum conveniens. See Service out of jurisdiction—forum conveniens

Fraud. See Disclosure—Norwich Pharmacal order

Freezing order. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders)

Fresh evidence. See Appeals—fresh evidence

Frivolous or vexatious claims. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—frivolous or vexatious claims)

Further and better particulars

affidavits

particulars may be ordered of documents alluded to in affidavits as well as in pleadings, as pleadings not always necessary, e.g. in Matrimonial Causes Division: A v. A (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 461

Grounds of appeal. See Appeals—grounds of appeal

Hague Service Convention. See Service out of jurisdiction—Hague Service Convention

Hearing

availability of counsel. See Adjournment—availability of counsel

availability of parties and facilities. See Case management—directions for conduct of action

chambers proceedings. See Ex parte applications—restraint orders. Hearing—hearing in private. INJUNCTIONS (Clameur de Haro—registration)

dismissal without hearing. See Abuse of process—control by court. Case management—appeal

expedited hearing. See Appeals—expedited hearing

hearing in private

appeal against decision of Chambre de Discipline—court to consider all facts and circumstances when deciding whether interests of justice and public interest require hearing in public or private: Registrar of la Chambre de Discipline v. An Advocate (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 261

application for administration order may be heard in private, court files sealed, title and text anonymised, and administration order not published if disclosure of precarious financial position of company risks its operations if other creditors become aware, and potentially causes disruption and distress to those in company’s care: In re Esquire Realty Holdings (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 77

application for exercise of discretion in supervisory jurisdiction of court over trusts to be heard in private, published details anonymized and reasons for decision treated as those of presiding judge and Jurats jointly: In re H Trust (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 118

court may allow hearing ex parte and in private if involves issues of sensitive nature and potential prejudice to applicant by putting interested parties on notice outweighs prejudice by parties’ non-attendance: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

court may hear trust proceedings in camera to protect parties’ confidential information—protection of confidential information may be outweighed by public interest in rectification proceedings: In re C Trust (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 105

general legal principle requires justice be done in public but where justice frustrated by publicity, privacy should prevail as far as necessary: In re Esquire Realty Holdings (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 77

hearing to be in private if concerns terms of settlement expressed to be confidential—usually hearing in private if involves surrender of trustee’s discretion to court—court may increase confidentiality by anonymizing parties’ names: A Trust Co. v. F (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 31

inherent jurisdiction to order proceedings to be held in camera—application pursuant to Protection of Investors (Administration and Intervention) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance 2008, s.4(3)(b) for court’s approval of joint administration managers’ decision to enter litigation funding agreement heard in camera: In re Providence Inv. Funds PCC Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR 400

open justice requires public hearing (by Royal Court and on appeal) of application to commit for contempt of court—burden on applicant for private hearing to show compelling reasons—exceptions only if justice frustrated by public hearing, or statute requires private hearing: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

open justice requires public hearing unless justice only served if in private—applications by trustees for directions heard in private—claims by trustees or other fiduciaries for remuneration usually heard in public: In re Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [5]

open justice requires public hearing unless justice only served if in private (e.g. if involves rape, children or mentally incapable)—burden on applicant to show on civil standard of proof that private hearing justified—risk of embarrassment of advocate by disclosure in interlocutory proceedings of alleged impropriety not sufficient justification for private hearing—risk part of work and no reason to protect legal more than other professions: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 77

Royal Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction may order hearing in private if evidence contains intimate personal details of litigant, e.g. gender reassignment, which need not be made public in small community—may still publish decision and reasons without disclosing identity: In re X (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 161

in camera proceedings. See Hearing—hearing in private

preparation of bundles

all documents submitted in bundles to Court of Appeal to be in strict chronological order: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

inclusion of expert evidence—if experts’ reports not agreed, not to be in Jurats’ pre-trial bundle—if agreed, only included in pre-trial bundle with leave of judge: Thompson v. Masterton (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 332

procedural changes in 2008

description of roles of presiding judge and Jurats following Royal Court (Reform) (Guernsey) Law 2008: Daniel v. Gover (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [27]

registration of Clameur de Haro. See INJUNCTIONS (Clameur de Haro—registration)

transcripts

beneficial to make written transcript of any hearing, since may speed up process of providing case stated and avoid regrettable delays: Income Tax Administrator v. Tremoille Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 295

H.M. Sergeant. See Commencement of proceedings—summons. INJUNCTIONS (Clameur de Haro—raising Clameur)

Hypothèque. See Judgments and orders—registration

In camera proceedings. See Hearing—hearing in private

Incorporation of jurisdiction clauses. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisdiction—incorporation of jurisdiction clauses)

Indemnity basis. See Costs—indemnity basis

Indemnity costs. See Costs—indemnity basis

Injunctions. See INJUNCTIONS

Inspection of documents. See Disclosure—inspection of documents

Institution of proceedings. See Commencement of proceedings

Interest on judgment debt. See Judgments and orders—interest on judgment debt

Interim payment of damages

court’s power to order

not authorized by specific law or express provision in Royal Court Civil Rules 1989—no inherent jurisdiction to order interim payment because substantive not procedural matter—desirable to introduce legal authority for making interim payments, especially if difficult to assess total damages in advance or final hearing date distant: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 1

ordering interim payment not within scope of court’s power to foster evolutionary growth of common law: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 1

Interim vesting order. See Saisie—interim vesting order

Interim vesting orders. See Saisie—interim vesting order

Interlocutory orders. See Judgments and orders—interlocutory orders. Judgments and orders—registration

Interpleader relief

active assistance to foreign liquidator. See COMPANIES (Compulsory winding up—assets available for distribution). CONFLICT OF LAWS (Assistance to foreign court—discretion of Guernsey court)

available orders

power under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.29(1) to make any order thought just in interpleader proceedings includes summary judgment under r.19—broad powers under Rules to ensure just resolution of case allows court to make case management decisions—nothing to prevent 2007 Rules, Parts II–IV applying to Part V: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [11]

costs

general rule that party interpleading entitled to recover costs from disputed funds in account, but court has discretion to allow—may be allowed after interpleader commences, e.g. costs of making inquiries required by court or attending hearings—decision on costs before interpleader commences may be deferred until case resolved if then clear whether recoverable from disputed funds or bank’s own liability: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 285

Interrogatories

procedure in Court of Alderney

court empowered by Government of Alderney Law 1987, s.17(2) and inherent jurisdiction to create and develop procedural rules for interrogatories and, in their absence, make ad hoc orders regulating interrogatories in particular cases—need for procedural certainty not precluding power to make ad hoc rules—court to take into account circumstances of case, including complexity, and that Guernsey Royal Court Civil Rules require interrogatories to be answered: Laughton v. Jackie Main (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 1

scope and purpose

ordered if necessary for disposing fairly of case or saving costs—same principles apply to commercial and non-commercial cases: Seymour v. MacDonald (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [13]

Interruption of péremption period. See Péremption—interruption of péremption period

Issue-based costs award. See Costs—discretion of court

Joinder of parties. See Parties—joinder of parties. TRUSTS (Powers and duties of trustees—exercise of discretion)

Joint and several liability. See Costs—joint and several liability

Judgment debt. See Judgments and orders—interest on judgment debt

Judgments and orders

amendment after delivery. See Judgments and orders—finality

consent orders

financial provision. See FAMILY LAW (Financial provision—maintenance agreement), (Financial provision—variation)

correction of decisions. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—correction of Tribunal’s errors in decisions and notices)

declaration

Royal Court has discretion to grant declaration in respect of uncontested application, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction and paramount duty to do justice to applicant, if no prejudice to persons not before court: In re Registrar-Gen. of Electors (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 304

Royal Court has discretion to grant declaration in respect of uncontested application, in exercise of paramount duty to do justice to applicant, if no prejudice to persons not before court—immaterial that no other remedy sought: In re Westbury Property Fund Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 176

Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to make declaratory order as to legitimacy of child, whenever necessary to do fullest justice to applicant, if no prejudice to persons not before court—only for purposes of instant application and not binding in rem: A Father v. H.M. Greffier (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 22

Royal Court unwilling to make declaration on legitimacy/illegitimacy if consequences of illegitimacy in Guernsey law unclear, since then risks prejudicing persons not before court: A Father v. H.M. Greffier (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 22

delivery of judgment

delay

18-month delay between end of trial and delivery of judgment unacceptable—prejudicial to parties and to system of justice: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 300

significant delay in delivery of judgment not, in itself, reason to quash decision—delay of more than 12 months gives rise to particular considerations to be taken into account by appeal court—appeal may be allowed if, on assessment of judgment, court finds errors or potential errors by trial judge, for which delay might provide explanation: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 300

significantly delayed judgment not unsatisfactory if contains minor errors, e.g. misstating name of witness: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 300

reasons for decision treated as those of presiding judge and Jurats jointly if presiding judge retires with Jurats to consider exercise of discretion in trusts matter (not on question of law alone for presiding judge): In re H Trust (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 118

election between judgments. See Abuse of process—election between judgments

finality

costs. See Costs—registration of order

court has inherent jurisdiction to amend final order by substituting plaintiff, if satisfied that he is correct plaintiff (e.g. if landlord should have applied for eviction order, rather than another company in same group): Oscar Holdings Ltd. v. Sovereign Windows (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [2]

extrinsic evidence generally inadmissible to contradict or vary arbitration award and other judicial documents: In re Brownstone Ins. (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [33]

if court follows established procedure and merits of case fully open to parties, however much parties fail to take advantage of or waive rights, parties may not dispute final adjudication—only questioned in appeal to higher court: Henry v. Veloso (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [31]

order final if totally disposes of matter in dispute whichever way given—interlocutory if, when decision given one way, finally disposes of matter but when given other way allows action to proceed—leave to appeal to Court of Appeal required under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(e) if decision interlocutory: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

provision as to finality in Employment Protection (Guernsey) Law 1998, s.17(3)(a) relates only to adjudicator’s determining reasonableness of Board of Industry’s decision not to allow complaint out of time under sub-s. (2)(b)—no relevance to adjudicator’s substantive decision on unfair dismissal—therefore not precluded from reconsidering e.g. decision on effective date of termination of employment: Warden v. Fermain Legal Servs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [35]

recognition of foreign proceedings. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Recognition of foreign proceedings—finality of proceedings)

format of orders on appeal

in determining complex, multiple appeals, court may prefer final order to set out grounds of appeal sequentially, followed by decision on each ground—may be preferable to narrative format which seeks to describe how court has attributed liabilities, with complexity giving scope for further uncertainty: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

freezing orders. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders)

implementation of orders on appeal

appeal court may make implementation responsibility of Royal Court—undesirable for Court of Appeal to try to supervise administration of complex appellate orders, since members largely non-resident and not available at short notice: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

interest on judgment debt

income tax—no claim for interest on overpaid income tax under Judgments (Interest) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.1(1), since not claim for debt: Carpenter v. Administrator of Income Tax (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [26]

“judgment debt” in Judgments (Interest) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.4(1) includes costs orders—interest awarded on costs orders at statutory rate of 8% from date orders made until payment, even though amount of costs payable not quantified when orders made: Public Trustee v. Red River Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2020 GLR N [2]

rate of interest—interest on special damages in personal injuries and clinical negligence cases calculated as one-half of rate payable on Short Term Investment Account in England (currently one-half of 6%) from date special damages incurred—Guernsey courts to continue to follow English practice to encourage certainty in settlement terms: Buckley v. Ronez Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 120

interest on overpaid income tax. See INCOME TAX (Overpayment—interest)

interlocutory orders

ancillary disclosure order. See Disclosure—ancillary disclosure order

freezing order. See INJUNCTIONS (Freezing orders)

order interlocutory if, when decision given one way, finally disposes of matter in dispute but when given other way allows action to proceed—order final if totally disposes of matter whichever way given—leave to appeal to Court of Appeal required under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(e) if decision interlocutory: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

registration. See Judgments and orders—registration

interpleader proceedings. See Interpleader relief—available orders

judgment debt

assignment—judgment debts against former trustees, as trustees of trust, extinguished on assignment to new trustees—ultimate right to receive and obligation to pay became coincident: ITG Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2020 GLR 158

assignment—judgment debts against former trustees, as trustees of trust, extinguished on assignment to new trustees—ultimate right to receive and ultimate obligation to pay became coincident: ITG Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 335

enforcement

creditor may be granted disclosure of judgment debtor’s accounts to aid enforcement of outstanding judgment if no viable alternative—ancillary order to see if previously transferred assets recoverable to pay judgment debt—preferable procedure to trouble and expense of liquidation of debtor: R.G. Ellis Ltd. v. Caxton Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 51

important for court to be able to make any ancillary order necessary to ensure effectiveness of judgment, e.g. injunction ordering disclosure of debtor’s accounts—disclosure may be restricted to specified accounts and to creditor’s advocate only, e.g. in case reveals commercially sensitive information: R.G. Ellis Ltd. v. Caxton Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 51

judgment in personam. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Recognition of foreign proceedings—judgment in personam)

non-compliance with order

civil contempt available to secure compliance, or criminal contempt to punish disobedience: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

Norwich Pharmacal order. See Disclosure—Norwich Pharmacal order

order confirming change of company name. See COMPANIES (Name of company—change of name)

priorities. See Judgments and orders—registration

publication. See Hearing—hearing in private

reasons for judgment

absence of reasons for Jurats’ decisions inappropriate in planning law appeals and incompatible with Human Rights (Guernsey) Law 2000—before 2000 Law in force, desirable in appeals from Island Development Committee for law to be changed to allow reasons to be given or deduced: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Lainé (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 385

courts to give adequate reasons for decisions (particularly in light of European Convention, art. 6)—adequacy depends on circumstances of case (reasons may be implicit in decision)—losing party must know reasons so as to consider whether to appeal: Bohan v. Bithell (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 347

in light of European Convention, art. 6, general duty on judges, and magistrates in particular, to give reasons for decisions—extent of reasoning required depends on circumstances of case—sufficient that parties and, if necessary, appellate court understand basis on which judge acts: Henry v. Veloso (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [31]

under both local and European Convention law, appellant entitled to know basis of adverse decision in reasonable detail—no reliance on Housing Needs Survey on appeal if no evidence that affected mind of original decision-maker and never previously mentioned to appellant: Thomas v. Housing Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 251

reciprocal enforcement. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Reciprocal enforcement of judgments and orders)

registration

counterclaim—Act of Court ordering counterclaim to be placed on pleading list registrable under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.6 in Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations with leave of court, creating priority charge over respondent’s interest in any Guernsey property—if property jointly owned, co-owner may be granted leave to intervene: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

declaration—claim for declaration in counterclaim valid form of substantive relief for which Act of Court may be registered notwithstanding no other relief sought, whether or not any claim for consequential relief (including costs)—mere claim for costs not of itself registrable: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

effect

creation of hypothèque over defendant’s Guernsey realty from date of registration, with priority over subsequent charges, potential interference with defendant’s enjoyment of property contrary to First Protocol to European Convention, art. 1—interference nevertheless proportionate, sufficiently certain and serves legitimate purpose in enforcement of civil claim—total protection against breach of article lies in sensible application of discretion by court under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.7: Jubilee Scheme 3 Ltd. v. Capita Symonds Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 25

plaintiff’s registration of interlocutory act (e.g. placing cause on pleading list) in Livre des Hypothèques creates hypothèque over defendant’s Guernsey realty from date of registration, with priority over subsequent charges whether registered or not: Jubilee Scheme 3 Ltd. v. Capita Symonds Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 25

registering interim vesting order in Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations transfers saisine in joint owner-debtor’s property to saisi hérédital, pending completion of process—joint interest severed, right of survivorship falls, and saisi hérédital obtains undivided share in property formerly in joint ownership: Waterman v. McCormack (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 283

registration pursuant to Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987 gives plaintiff charge over defendant’s property—priority over all subsequent charges and actions—priority not lost on insolvency of defendant: Moed v. Cockram (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 329

third party registering charge in Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations against joint owner of property obtains hypothèque over joint interest—joint owner’s right of survivorship not affected by hypothecation of joint interest and therefore no severance results: Waterman v. McCormack (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 283

leave to register

plaintiff entitled to register act of court pursuant to Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987 if action sustainable—may be refused leave if action frivolous, vexatious, obviously unsustainable or should be struck out on recognized grounds—court also to consider any delay by plaintiff—principles applied by English court in considering grant or discharge of Mareva relief not same as principles applied to exercise of jurisdiction under Law—Mareva relief and registration of act of court different: Moed v. Cockram (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 329

locus standi

party to proceedings has standing to challenge registration of action pursuant to Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987: Moed v. Cockram (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 329

péremption

registration of act of court does not become périmée—if whole action becomes périmée, interlocutory orders fall away: Moed v. Cockram (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 329

priorities—no change of priorities possible by varying leave to register under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.7(c)—priority determined by registration itself not by order giving leave to register—variation limited to altering amount specified in order giving leave to register, e.g. may be reduced if registered value of claim provides adequate security for sum plaintiff likely to recover: Albany Hotel Ltd. v. Wrench (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [6]

revocation—court may make whatever order just, whether for registration or revocation—to consider all circumstances—discretion to revoke registration not limited to frivolous or vexatious claims: First Call Recruitment v. Wright (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [19]

scope—Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.6 limits registration to acts or orders of court—no power to register act or order of arbitrator: Wrench v. Albany Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [20]

variation

court to strike balance between plaintiff requiring security for as yet unproved claim and defendant wishing to deal with his real property—full information about financial implications of variation required—court always to give weight to allowing legitimate commercial activity to continue in relation to defendant’s realty: Jubilee Scheme 3 Ltd. v. Capita Symonds Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 25

no power under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.7(c) to vary by increasing size of charge beyond amount claimed in proceedings—purpose of Law to restrict customary right to register interlocutory order as security for amount claimed: Wrench v. Albany Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [20]

since unfettered discretion under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.7(c), court cannot invariably require alternative security when varying registration so as to affect hypothèque—whether required depends on nature and context of variation: Jubilee Scheme 3 Ltd. v. Capita Symonds Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 25

registration of foreign judgments. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Reciprocal enforcement of judgments and orders—registration of foreign judgments)

summary judgment

applicable principles: Landl v. Hogg (C.A.), 2024 GLR N [3]

application for summary judgment under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.17 not to be used to obtain, in effect, immediate trial of action—summary judgment deprives defendant of putting case before court, and court’s discretion under r.20 therefore to be used sparingly: Le Pelley v. Waite (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [20]

court not obliged to accept mere assertion of facts by defence witnesses which would form basis of defence—may be rejected and summary judgment given if manifestly implausible or inconsistent with compelling documentary or other evidence—assertion of existence of oral agreement contradicting terms of binding written agreement normally unlikely to succeed: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 41

court to avoid giving summary judgment on simple case if reasonable grounds for believing fuller investigation would alter evidence available and affect outcome of case, particularly in case where details intentionally hidden by fraudster—not to prevent court from giving summary judgment if satisfied has all necessary evidence to determine claim bad in law: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [11]

defendants granted summary judgment that declaration of trust unlawful and void under Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008, ss. 301–305—declaration of trust was “distribution” of company assets under s.301—no solvency resolution, as required by s.303: JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc. v. Rhodes (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 189

if issue of law is matter of statutory interpretation, not dependent on factual background, may be wasteful of court’s resources to defer consideration to full trial: JJW Hotels & Resort Hldgs. Inc. v. Rhodes (C.A.), 2022 GLR 538

may give summary judgment if applicant shows no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason why should progress to trial—respondents subject to low standard of proof to rebut evidence—no real prospect of success if claim “fanciful,” but claim “realistic” if carries some degree of conviction and more than merely arguable—court to avoid mini-trial, but may take into account any evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial—not required to take evidence at face value: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [11]

mere fact that application for summary judgment pending not good enough reason to decline to proceed with arbitration under discretion in Arbitration (Guernsey) Law 1982, s.4: States v. Miller & Baird (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 295

no summary judgment if defendant has fairly arguable case—apparently unquestioned documentary evidence, e.g. account showing balance due or letter promising payment, may displace defendant’s claim—court entitled to inspect documents to ensure moneys due, or bona fide dispute, and non-payment not merely attempt by defendant to delay: M.G.F. Ltd. v. J.K.F. Devs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [14]

no summary judgment if defendant shows fairly arguable defences: Trinity Inv. Ltd. v. Long Port Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 162

overriding objective of Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.1 that court should deal with cases justly requires it (in interests of parties and general administration of justice) not to permit cases to proceed to trial, with associated expenditure of costs and time, if outcome inevitable: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 41

plaintiff’s application for summary judgment that declaration of trust valid dismissed—defendants raised issues as to declaration of trust which required investigation: JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc. v. Rhodes (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 189

power to grant summary judgment in Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.19 on ground that plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on claim or issue, or defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending claim or issue—high hurdle: JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc. v. Rhodes (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 189

principles followed on application for summary judgment under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.19(2): Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 332

Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.19(2) requires summary judgment if defendant can show “no real prospect” of successful defence—“real” distinguished from fanciful or merely arguable—if court doubtful about completeness of evidence, may permit case to go to trial to reveal “full story,” even if no more than minimal chance of success, since that may be “compelling reason why claim should be disposed of at trial”: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 41

summary judgment under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.19 not restricted to cases inscribed on rôle des causes à plaider if proceedings have reached equivalent stage under another Part of Rules—availability during interpleader proceedings not precluded by “summary determination” available under r.27(2)(a): EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [11]

to give summary judgment, court to be satisfied that no defence and no fairly arguable points that defendant could raise—if fairly arguable points but doubt as to defendant’s good faith or how case presented, may give conditional leave to defend: Trident Trust Co. (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Comprop Guernsey Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [32]

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.20, court may, following summary judgment application under r.17, give such judgment as thinks just—“may” not to be interpreted as “must”—court retains discretion not to give summary judgment even when defendant fails to establish triable issues, e.g. if plaintiff’s case insufficiently strong to justify summary judgment: Le Pelley v. Waite (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [20]

when considering application for summary judgment, court to apply English principles set out in 1 The Supreme Court Practice 1999, paras. 14/3–14/4/38, at 171–186: M.G.F. Ltd. v. J.K.F. Devs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [14]

Judicial review. See ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Judicial review)

Jurats. See Appeals—decisions of Jurats

Law applicable

guidance from English Rules

since Royal Court uses English civil procedure rules as guidance in interpretation of Royal Court Civil Rules, should adopt English “change of practice” of last 10 years and be prepared to make more “issue-based” costs orders: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 323

Leave to appeal. See Appeals—leave to appeal. COURTS (Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council), (Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal), (Royal Court—leave to appeal)

Leave to serve out of jurisdiction. See Service out of jurisdiction—leave to serve out of jurisdiction

Letter of request. See EVIDENCE (Assistance from foreign court—letter of request)

Litigants in person. See Appeals—litigants in person. Costs—litigants in person. Costs—security for costs

Litigation privilege. See Disclosure—inspection of documents

Livre des Hypothèques, Actes de Cour et Obligations. See Costs—claim for costs. Counterclaim—placing on pleading list. Judgments and orders—registration

Necessary or proper party. See Service out of jurisdiction—necessary or proper party

Norwich Pharmacal orders. See Disclosure—Norwich Pharmacal order

Notice of appeal. See Appeals—notice of appeal

Overriding objective

evidence. See EVIDENCE (Expert evidence—admissibility)

summary judgment. See Judgments and orders—summary judgment

Parallel foreign proceedings. See Stay of proceedings—parallel foreign proceedings. CONFLICT OF LAWS (Parallel foreign proceedings). INJUNCTIONS (Anti-suit injunction—factors to be considered)

Parallel Guernsey proceedings. See Abuse of process—election between judgments. Stay of proceedings—parallel Guernsey proceedings

Parallel proceedings. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Parallel foreign proceedings)

Parties

defendant

no defendant required to Hastings-Bass application—applicant to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant evidence—if no factual uncertainties, court may assume inquisitorial role in examining exercise of trustee’s discretion: Gresh v. RBC Trust Co. (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 216

plaintiff may choose not to assert vicarious liability of defendant tortfeasor’s employer if wishes to proceed against tortfeasor personally for act committed in course of employment: Ogier v. Paint (Magistrate’s Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [5]

joinder of parties

former director of entities under administration management orders not joined as party to application by administrators for inter alia court’s approval of decisions: In re Global Mutual Fund PCC Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR N [5]

GFSC’s participation in winding-up proceedings. See COMPANIES (Compulsory winding up—role of GFSC)

husband not to be joined in co-ownership dispute between wife and third party (even if contributed to property renovation from own funds) if raises no issue against either party requiring decision but merely wishes to support wife’s claim: McCormack v. Waterman (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [11]

joinder of HMRC to Hastings-Bass application. See TRUSTS (Powers and duties of trustees—exercise of discretion)

joinder of unmarried birth father. See FAMILY LAW (Adoption—joinder of unmarried birth father)

no need to add reserve beneficiaries to proceedings for interpretation of trust document as already bound by judgment and adequately protected by advocate’s awareness of all possible outcomes: In re C Trust (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 105

persons may be joined as party to proceedings at court’s discretion under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.37—not always necessary for person applying for joinder to make submissions, but may be required to do so if wishes actively to oppose substantive proceedings—“sufficient interest” test for joinder and for making submissions without joinder, but lower level of interest required to allow latter: In re Kingston Mgmt. (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 670

trust company directors proper parties to beneficiaries’ action against trust company for breach of trust—Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.34(1)—common question between parties, just and convenient to determine: Rowe v. Cross (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 154

non-parties

disclosure of non-party funder’s identity. See Disclosure—ancillary disclosure order

plaintiff

substitution of parties—court may amend final order by substituting plaintiff, if satisfied that he is correct plaintiff (e.g. if landlord should have applied for eviction order, rather than another company in same group): Oscar Holdings Ltd. v. Sovereign Windows (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [2]

Payment into court

adequacy of payment

if party wishes to pay disputed funds into court, should retain sufficient to cover costs and expenses to date—if sum retained exceeds actual costs and expenses, should ultimately pay balance into court or as court otherwise orders: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 285

payment pending appeal

court to be satisfied that “compelling reason” to order payment of judgment debt pending appeal—normally satisfied if no evidence of financial hardship to person paying, able to instruct advocates throughout, and payment will not stifle appeal: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 383

Péremption

causation

if costs wasted by proceedings becoming périmée in Guernsey, irrelevant that already prescribed by foreign limitation law if both prescription and péremption caused by same dereliction of duty, e.g. failure to comply with court order requiring formal steps in proceedings within specified time—party sustaining loss still able to rely on dereliction of duty since costs would not have been wasted “but for” that dereliction: Mourant Ozannes v. Braun (C.A.), 2014 GLR 285

effect of péremption

if action périmée, action survives but remedy barred—successful plea of prescription extinguishes cause of action completely: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [29]

interruption of péremption period

no interruption of péremption period by judicial involvement unless valid application effected by proper means—interruption when notice given of application to court—application referring to wrong number of parties, made without formal notice, without sufficient supporting documentation and not proceeding to trial insufficient to interrupt péremption period: Silver Falcon Enterprises Ltd. v. Cochrane (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 116

registration of orders

registration of act of court does not become périmée—if whole action becomes périmée, interlocutory orders fall away: Moed v. Cockram (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 329

renunciation of right

burden on plaintiff to show defendant renounced right to rely on péremption—e.g. defendant’s continuation of legal aid application, renewal of cautions and agreeing to trial date and directions not enough to satisfy burden of proving tacit renunciation: Henniger v. Robinson (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [10]

restoration to roll

discretion of court

decision to restore action for damages for personal injuries suffered in 1991 not set aside on appeal—Deputy Bailiff considered all relevant matters including responsibility for delay, effect of delay on parties’ cases and general circumstances affecting impecunious plaintiffs: Guernsey Annandale Tile Co. (1980) Ltd. v. Haines (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 35

in absence of special “Guernsey factors,” e.g. difficulty in obtaining legal representation for impecunious plaintiff or obtaining medical reports, much more difficult to justify restoration of action affected by péremption—court entitled to also consider limited resources of the court in refusing restoration: Silver Falcon Enterprises Ltd. v. Cochrane (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 116

Royal Court has unfettered discretion under Royal Court Civil Rules, r.50 to order restoration of actions—plaintiff to satisfy court that restoration just in circumstances—matters to be taken into account include position of plaintiff and effect on him and his case if action not restored; history of action; position of defendant and effect on him and case if action restored; any special circumstances; and general circumstances in Guernsey concerning relevant litigation—English approach not followed: Guernsey Annandale Tile Co. (1980) Ltd. v. Haines (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 35

to consider all circumstances of case to decide whether restoration fair—positions of parties and effects of restoration or refusal on them, existence of settlement discussions or agreement not to proceed, together with any special factors causing delay in Guernsey to be considered—agreement on mediation of small claim persuasive reason to restore: Singleton v. Duncan (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [5]

to consider all circumstances to decide whether restoration fair—includes specific Guernsey factors, e.g. difficulty securing legal representation for impecunious plaintiff or obtaining medical reports—if Guernsey factors not significant, plaintiff to show failure to request hearing date in time excusable and case otherwise prosecuted expeditiously before interests of justice and hardship more generally taken into account: Henniger v. Robinson (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [10]

to consider all circumstances to decide whether restoration fair—positions of parties, effect of restoration on parties, history of action and (in)activity leading to it becoming périmé, special circumstances, e.g. settlement discussions or agreement not to proceed, and general circumstances relating to relevant class of litigation, e.g. difficulty securing legal representation for impecunious plaintiff or obtaining medical reports—severe hardship reason to deny restoration: Henniger v. Robinson (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [10]

to consider all circumstances to decide whether restoration fair—“special Guernsey factors” to be considered limited to matters hindering or delaying start or pursuit of proceedings—péremption test similar to test for striking out for want of prosecution but since only similar, need not follow English restrictions on striking out: McNamara v. Gauson (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 387

unfettered discretion to restore causes to roll—court to take into account (i) effect on plaintiff; (ii) history of action and activity of plaintiff; (iii) effect on defendant; (iv) any other special circumstances relating to action; and (v) particular “Guernsey factors” including difficulty of securing legal representation for impecunious plaintiff: Stoneman v. Pannell Kerr Forster (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 387

only rarely can court logically believe that action should be restored to roll (under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.50) if périmé after a year and a day without proceeding, and at same time strike out (under r.36(1)) for want of prosecution—similar test for both procedures, i.e. whether delay excusable or prejudicial: Ogier v. Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [15]

wasted costs. See ADVOCATES (Costs—personal liability)

Perjury. See Appeals—fresh evidence

Pleading

amendment

amendment to include new particular at late stage allowed as not new cause of action and no undue prejudice to defence: Williams v. BASA Surveying Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 220

by Royal Court Rules 1989, r.35, amendments to particulars generally permitted as clarifying issues—amendment adding new cause of action after expiry of prescription period normally not permitted since exception de fonds would clearly defeat claim—permissible only if possibility of plaintiff successfully raising empêchement d’agir defence (that practically impossible to commence or continue proceedings sooner): James v. Midland Bank Trust Corp. (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [4]

if concerns issues in developing area of law, inappropriate to assess whether to allow amendment on the basis of hypothetical, rather than established facts: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

if merely adds weight to particular legal argument may be reason to refuse leave to amend, but leave allowed if amended pleadings not demurrable and have independent purpose: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

if new cause of action raised by amendment and no unfair prejudice to defendant, court may allow hearing outside statutory time-limit—in deciding whether equitable to override time-limit for personal injuries action (Law Reform (Tort) (Guernsey) Law 1979, s.5(4), court to consider (under s.8(3)), inter alia, length and reasons for delay, (e.g. need to find and retain new expert witness), whether affects cogency of evidence (e.g. if substantial body of well-recorded, contemporaneous evidence) and conduct of parties: Butt v. Brannan (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [15]

leave to amend cause generally allowed and no reason in principle to refuse amendment, unless causes prejudice to respondent that cannot be met by appropriate costs order or proposed pleadings clearly and obviously have no prospect of success—case for leave even stronger if refusal causes additional cost and delay: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

principles governing court’s approach include (i) amendment generally allowed when possible to compensate other party with costs, but usually impossible to compensate for loss of prescription defence; (ii) amendment not new cause of action if arises from same or substantially same facts already pleaded, regardless of label; (iii) amendment introducing new causes of action prescribed if limitation period expired before amendment, but if amendment allowed, back-dated to start of original proceedings; and (iv) amendment with no realistic prospect of success not allowed: Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 220

extension of time. See Pleading—amendment

fraud

fraud in strict sense, i.e. involving deceit and dishonesty and not merely “equitable fraud,” to be clearly alleged and specifically pleaded: Ferbrache v. Kirk (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [3]

fraud or dishonesty to be specifically pleaded—pleading bad faith in partnership dispute not tantamount to dishonesty: Sinclair v. Nicholson (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 101

further and better particulars

court to consider particulars as part of pleading—function (a) to inform other party of case to be met, (b) to prevent other party being taken by surprise at trial, (c) to enable other party to prepare evidence, (d) to limit generality of pleadings, claim or evidence, and (e) to limit and define triable issues and issues requiring discovery, so party to whom particulars given cannot, without leave, go into matters not included: Island Star Ltd. v. John Reid & Son (Structsteel) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [25]

function of particulars to identify clearly issues in contest requiring investigation by court, and to ensure trial conducted fairly, openly, without surprises and at miminal cost: Island Star Ltd. v. John Reid & Son (Structsteel) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [25]

ordered before service of defence only if pleadings inadequate—inadequate if causes defendant serious doubt about case against him so that unable to respond or if special circumstances, such as inability to defend interlocutory application: Sinclair v. Nicholson (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 101

primary method of resolving lack of clarity in pleadings, rather than striking out: Williams v. Dixcart Trust Corp. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [9]

striking out not justified if pleading defective because does not contain information to which other party entitled—not justified by serious lack of particulars if not result of blatant disregard of court orders and defect remediable (e.g. by further and better particulars): IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

particularity

lack of particularity of grounds in support of application to amend not reason to refuse leave, provided general pleading contains supporting material: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

pleading list. See Judgments and orders—registration

presentation of case

Henderson rule prima facie requires party to present whole case to court at same time—may be abuse of process later to raise further arguments, claims or defences not raised in original presentation—rule of public policy based on need for finality in litigation and avoiding oppression of defendant by multiple suits: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. ITG Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [9]

striking out

abuse of process

Court of Appeal reluctant to interfere with trial judge’s decision if complaint only of inappropriate balancing of factors: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 332

detailed rules stated (with explanations and exceptions) for striking out under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.52(2)(b) for abuse of process by breach of Henderson rule, i.e. failure to present whole case at same time: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. ITG Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [9]

new pleading struck out as abuse of process if should have been pursued in previous proceedings—court to consider substance of claims—new claim could have been made in previous proceedings if significant overlap in parties, cause of action, evidence and witnesses—struck out if no credible explanation for failure to do so: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 332

Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (P.C.), 2018 GLR 97

new pleading struck out as abuse of process if should have been pursued in previous proceedings—principles considered: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 332

action may be struck out under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36(2) for want of prosecution if (a) intentional and contumelious default; or (b) inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecution by plaintiff or advocates, giving rise to substantial risk of unfair trial or serious prejudice to defendant: Scanfield Ltd. v. Carr (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [16]

court less inclined to strike out pleadings if allegations part of complex factual matrix and some matters could legitimately proceed to trial: International Steel & Tube Indus. Ltd. v. Masood (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [13]

defences to be struck out only if incurably bad or suffering from such lack of evidence as to be unarguable: International Steel & Tube Indus. Ltd. v. Masood (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [13]

general considerations for court in deciding applications under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36(1)—English authorities on RSC valuable in absence of Guernsey authority: Williams v. Dixcart Trust Corp. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [9]

in exercising discretion under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36(2) to strike out action for want of prosecution, court guided by English approach before Civil Procedure Rules 1998—to take flexible approach and not undertake cumbersome analytical exercises: Scanfield Ltd. v. Carr (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [16]

in interpreting Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36, court to be guided by English RSC, O.18, r.19 and commentary—duty under r.36 and inherent jurisdiction to strike out to identify issues between parties, but only if obvious that case unarguable—prolonged argument only heard if soundness of pleadings doubtful and striking out obviates need for trial or reduces preparation: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

no reasonable cause of action—pleading only struck out if plain that claim will not succeed—no striking out if has some chance of success, however slight—serious argument only allowed if pleadings dubious and striking out would avoid trial or substantially reduce burden of preparation: Wessedah Foundation v. Barings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 141

no reasonable cause of action—preliminary hearing of cause of action on affidavits not normally allowed, as would involve conducting trial in advance—if serious point of law, objection to be taken on pleadings and set down for argument: Wessedah Foundation v. Barings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 141

no “reasonable cause of action” disclosed—“reasonable cause of action” one with some chance of success when only allegations in pleadings considered: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

no striking out merely because pleading appears to contain unnecessary matter—in developing state of Guernsey trust industry, court to encourage resolution of issues at trial, rather than allow striking out of allegations pleaded in alternative ways but not causing extra work in responding to them: Hutcheson v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [4]

plaintiff not permitted to pursue action against defendant alone based on allegation of fraud against defendant’s husband, which plaintiff had not made in action against husband: Matheson Secs. (C.I.) Ltd. v. Hulme (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 125

pleadings containing all legally essential elements not struck out if sufficiently clear for defendant to respond: Sinclair v. Nicholson (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 101

striking out not justified if pleading defective because does not contain information to which other party entitled—not justified by serious lack of particulars if defect remediable (e.g. by further and better particulars) and not result of blatant disregard of court orders: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

strong grounds required to strike out action brought in Royal Court—court to be fully satisfied that no reasonably arguable cause of action, or action otherwise abuse of process: Matheson Secs. (C.I.) Ltd. v. Hulme (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 125

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.36, categories for striking out open-ended and depend on all relevant circumstances, including e.g. whether public policy involved—if abuse of process alleged, court only to exercise jurisdiction rarely, when clear that plaintiff will not succeed at trial or if collateral purpose for bringing action not bona fide: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

under Royal Court Civil Rules 1989, r.43, court may make orders as to evidence to be heard in strike-out proceedings—whether to admit evidence under r.43 to be decided on case-by-case basis: IFS Invs. Ltd. v. Manor Park (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 308

Point not argued. See Appeals—point not argued

Pre-judgment interest on costs. See Costs—pre-judgment interest

Preparation of bundles. See Hearing—preparation of bundles

Prescription. See PRESCRIPTION

Priority of orders. See Judgments and orders—registration

Privacy. See Hearing—hearing in private

Privilege. See ADVOCATES (Professional privilege—legal advice privilege)

Probate. See SUCCESSION (Wills—probate)

Proceeds of unlawful conduct

forfeiture

to obtain forfeiture under Forfeiture of Money &c. in Civil Proceedings (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2007, s.13(2), Crown to show on balance of probabilities that each method by which property obtained sufficient to amount to “unlawful conduct” under s.61(3)—lies and contradictions by respondent as to provenance of property may be sufficient to meet civil standard of proving unlawful conduct: In re Forfeiture of Money in Civil Proceedings Law 2007 (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 232

Reasons for judgment. See Judgments and orders—reasons for judgment

Reception of English law. See JURISPRUDENCE (Reception of English law), (Reception of English law—civil procedure)

Registration of orders. See Judgments and orders—registration. Péremption—registration of orders

Regulation of tribunal’s procedure. See EMPLOYMENT (Employment & Discrimination Tribunal—regulation of Tribunal’s procedure)

Restoration of case to roll. See Péremption—restoration to roll

Running of time. See PRESCRIPTION (Running of time)

Saisie

interim vesting order

in saisie proceedings (i.e. renonciation par loi outrée), effect of order to vest debtor’s realty in creditor in order to recover moneys owed, after which debtor has no further interest in realty—court to consider all circumstances, including delays, unnecessary litigation and justice of each party’s situation: Pirito v. Curth (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 571

no stay of saisie proceedings, pending applicant’s appeal to Privy Council for reinstatement as tenant of hotel previously owned by debtor, if ownership of hotel already vested in creditor by interim vesting order: Trimbee v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR N [11]

order severs debtors’ joint ownership of property—where both joint owners of property are judgment debtors, after interim vesting order property vests in saisi hérédital in equal undivided shares—where debt is joint and several, creditor can pursue either debtor or both: In re Gallienne (Saisie proceedings) (Royal Ct.), 2020 GLR 205

saisie proceedings against married couple who were joint debtors in respect of two debts but only husband was debtor in respect of third debt not severed and treated as separate saisie proceedings: In re Gallienne (Saisie proceedings) (Royal Ct.), 2020 GLR 205

under Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order 1952, para. 2(3), interim vesting order vests whole of debtor’s real property in creditor, as trustee for claimants against real property—final vesting order vests real property in creditor personally: Trimbee v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR N [11]

under Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order 1952, para. 2(5), court has power to make or postpone interim vesting order—terms not to be construed as enabling court to order new type of interim vesting order, e.g. with condition that remaining equity returned to debtor after debts paid, since judicial law-making would cause considerable uncertainty and change long-established, well-understood procedure: Pirito v. Curth (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 571

Scandalous allegation. See Costs—indemnity basis

Security for costs. See Costs—appeal costs. Costs—security for costs

Separation of claims. See Trial of preliminary issue—factors to be considered

Service of documents

alternative means of service

in exceptional circumstances, under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.9(b) may order service on respondent “in some other manner” than permitted by rr. 2–8—delay or compliance with overriding objective of 2007 Rules not sufficient per se to justify alternative means, but may be factors in combination with others, e.g. need to make timely progress with substantive proceedings, impracticality of Hague Service Convention-compliant method of service, and fact that good service already effected on some respondents: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

methods of delivery

advocates well advised to clarify acceptability of methods of delivery, e.g. fax, e-mail or hand delivery, to avoid doubts as to service, especially in Sark: de Carteret v. Mann (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [18]

service on defendant in Sark

if defendant in Sark to be convened to Royal Court, plaintiff either to seek leave to serve out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8, or effect service through Prévôt pursuant to s.3 of Ordonnance relative aux Ajours et aux Causes mises devant la Cour Royale 1934: Gomoll v. Ruggaber (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 113

service out of jurisdiction. See Service out of jurisdiction

summons

Service out of jurisdiction

affidavit in support

in applications for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8, required to produce affidavits in sufficient detail to enable court to take account of all factors it should properly consider: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

alternative means of service

in exceptional circumstances, under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.9(b) may order service on respondent “in some other manner” than acceptable under law of foreign jurisdiction party to Hague Service Convention—delay or compliance with overriding objective of 2007 Rules not sufficient per se to justify departure from Hague Service Convention, but may be factors in combination with others, e.g. need to make timely progress with substantive proceedings, impracticality of Hague Service Convention-compliant method of service, and fact that good service already effected on some parties: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

inefficiency of postal service in foreign jurisdiction not sufficient reason to order alternative means of service when postal service accepted norm—applicants may consider whether to send by registered post, courier or hand-delivery by local solicitor, or even electronically where permitted: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

justified in exceptional circumstances and with good reason—retrospective validation of service requires even stronger grounds and more exceptional case—court to respect principle of comity as far as possible: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

no explicit requirement for “good reason” to order alternative means of service under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.9(b), but nevertheless important to have reasoned foundation for decision: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

when considering order for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8, not always necessary to consider feasibility of Hague Service Convention-compliant method of service first—service by alternative means may be justified from outset: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

when ordering alternative means of service under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.9(b), court to specify means of service, rather than ordering service by alternative means in the abstract: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

élection de domicile

foreign party’s election de domicile of its Guernsey advocates’ offices in interlocutory proceedings not to be used without authorization for purposes of other proceedings, even if related: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

factors to be considered

factors to be considered: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

permitted if (a) in relation to foreign defendant, serious issue to be tried on merits, i.e. substantial question of fact or law, or both, with reasonable prospect of success at trial; (b) “good, arguable” case for permitting service out of jurisdiction, i.e. much better arguments for than against; and (c) Guernsey clearly and distinctly appropriate forum: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

plaintiff to satisfy court that serious issue to be tried; cause properly justiciable; Guernsey clearly and distinctly appropriate forum; and in all circumstances court should exercise its discretion under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8: Talos Invs. Ltd. v. Banoncia Holding Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 12

forum conveniens

applicant to show Guernsey clearly appropriate forum for trial—may do so in one of four ways—(i) application in respect of contract governed by Guernsey law; (ii) application concerns claim arising under Guernsey statute; (iii) applicant seeking to prevent commission of certain acts in Guenrsey; and (iv) overseas respondents necessary or proper parties to application: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

applicant to show Guernsey clearly or distinctly appropriate forum for trial—may do so by showing respondent on whom service to be effected is necessary or proper party to application—deemed necessary or proper, e.g. if directly affected by substantive issue, and involvement required by remedy sought—respondent may be necessary or proper party even if not directly involved in dispute in substantive proceedings, e.g. if beneficial owner of company which is party to contract under dispute: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

Guernsey clearly and distinctly appropriate forum for trial of claim brought by BVI company in respect of loan to Cypriot company guaranteed by Russian national resident in Switzerland—plaintiff had Guernsey directors and administered in Guernsey, loan and guarantee agreements governed by Guernsey law and Guernsey courts had exclusive jurisdiction: Talos Invs. Ltd. v. Banoncia Holding Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 12

guidance for advocates

applications for leave to serve out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules, r.8 should not propose methods of service resulting in action contrary to law of country in which service to be effected: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

in applications for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules, r.8, required to produce affidavits in sufficient detail to enable court to take account of all factors it should properly consider: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

in applications for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules, r.8, to alert court to any adverse consequences arising from law of foreign jurisdiction and rendering proposed method of service unworkable or unlawful: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

Hague Service Convention

in exceptional circumstances, under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.9(b) may order service on respondent “in some other manner” than acceptable under law of foreign jurisdiction that is party to Hague Service Convention—delay or compliance with overriding objective of 2007 Rules not sufficient per se to justify departure from Hague Service Convention, but may be factors in combination with others, e.g. need to make timely progress with substantive proceedings, impracticality of Hague Service Convention-compliant method of service, and fact that good service already effected on some respondents: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

when making order for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8, court to consider whether Hague Service Convention applies in foreign jurisdiction—if so, to dispense with Hague Service Convention-compatible methods of service only in exceptional circumstances: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

when making order for service out of jurisdiction under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8, not always necessary to consider feasibility of Hague Service Convention-compliant method of service first—service by alternative means may be justified from outset: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

law applicable

court may have regard to English principles, but Royal Court Civil Rules 2007 offer greater flexibility than English counterpart: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

leave to serve out of jurisdiction

application for leave not to propose any method of service resulting in action contrary to law of country in which service to be effected: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

court has discretion to grant leave under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8(1)—under r.8(2), court must be satisfied matter to which document relates (a) properly justiciable before court and (b) proper one for service out—in exercise of discretion, court can grant leave if (a) serious issue to be tried on merits; (b) cause is properly justiciable; (c) Guernsey clearly and distinctly appropriate forum; and (d) appropriate in circumstances: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

no leave if no serious issue to be tried—allegation against third party of aiding and abetting breach of court order (disclosure of restricted information) raises no serious issue if fails to allege specific action by third party—also raises no serious issue if, on strict reading of order, information disclosed not actually restricted: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

no power under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8 to grant leave for service out of jurisdiction of committal notice in respect of alleged contempt of court (third party aiding and abetting breach of court order) committed overseas by non-resident: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

necessary or proper party

applicant may demonstrate Guernsey is forum conveniens, e.g. because respondent on whom service to be effected is necessary or proper party to application—deemed necessary or proper, e.g. if directly affected by substantive issue even though degree of remoteness from it, and involvement required by remedy sought—beneficial owner of company which is party to contract under dispute in substantive proceedings is necessary or proper party: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

principles to be applied: Cobra Business Ventures Ltd. v. Green Field Capital Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [27]

service on defendant in Sark

substituted service under foreign law

if all required steps taken by Guernsey authorities to serve notice out of jurisdiction but service in person difficult, deemed properly served if foreign procedural rules for such circumstances followed: Rothschild Trust Guernsey Ltd. v. Pateras (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 239

Set-off

compensation in customary law

detailed description of principle in Guernsey customary law: Flightlease Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Flightlease (Ireland) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 38

fund ascertainment principle

principle akin to set-off and may be applicable in insolvent liquidation if set-off precluded, e.g. rule against double proof precluding guarantor from proving in liquidation of debtor when principal creditors already proved—under principle, creditor not entitled to participate in distribution if also debtor, without first contributing to property available for distribution by paying debt: Flightlease Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Flightlease (Ireland) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 38

Settlement of proceedings

approval by court exercising trustees’ discretion. See TRUSTS (Powers and duties of trustees—control by court), (Supervision by court—exercise of discretion)

offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs”

offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs” less significant than payment into court or offer to settle made under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.62—always important and court to consider what weight to give it in circumstances of case: Buckley v. Ronez Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 120

“without prejudice” communications. See EVIDENCE (Privilege—“without prejudice” communications)

Skeleton arguments. See ADVOCATES (Duties to court—presentation of case)

Specific disclosure. See Disclosure—specific disclosure

Specific discovery. See Discovery—specific discovery

Stay of execution

appeals. See Appeals—stay of execution

application to European Court of Human Rights

since European Court not further appellate court in Guernsey judicial system (including Judicial Committee), once leave to appeal refused by Judicial Committee, Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to order stay of execution of own decision pending application by unsuccessful appellant to European Court: Murfitt v. States (Alderney) (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [10]

constitution of court

judge sitting alone has no jurisdiction to stay execution of eviction order or to determine length of stay—since involves exercise of court’s discretion, not merely issue of procedure and to be determined by Jurats: Storm Residential & Comm. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Sarnia Devs. Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 427

judge sitting alone may hear matters of procedure, law or costs, but if matter of fact or issue involving exercise of court’s discretion, to be determined by Jurats—if unclear whether matter of fact, discretion involved and Jurats to sit: Storm Residential & Comm. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Sarnia Devs. Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 427

opportunity to be heard

stay of execution of eviction order not to be granted without giving parties opportunity to make representations: Rogers v. Moerman (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR 327

stay pending appeal

normal rule that no stay ordered unless “solid grounds” shown—solid grounds usually requires proof of “irremediable harm” to party seeking stay: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 383

substantive test

execution of Royal Court judgment not stayed by appeal unless court orders otherwise under Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.15(a)—court to balance risks of injustice to one or both parties if stay granted or refused—risks of injustice include appeal being rendered nugatory if stay refused and unenforceability of lower court judgment if stay refused and appeal fails: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 1

in balancing risks, court to have special regard to undertakings offered or refused, e.g. offering no undertaking to indemnify other side against losses incurred when not in control of funds contrasts unfavourably with offer to establish separate account for funds and to distribute only on instructions of court: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 1

nature of assets highly influential in deciding whether or not to stay judgment pending appeal—may be little justification in delaying realization of investments, which would have to be realized at some stage—greater justification in granting stay in respect of substantial real property asset which maintains value and not recoverable if appeal succeeds: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 1

once threshold test overcome, court may consider detailed strengths and weaknesses of appeal as advanced by parties—may choose not to place any weight on them if unable to make any judgment because proceedings not far enough advanced: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 1

threshold test

applicant for stay first to satisfy threshold test that prospects of appeal “not unrealistic” and advanced in good faith before court can consider substantive merits of application: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2014 GLR 1

Stay of proceedings

application for costs

successful party’s application for costs stayed pending determination of related proceedings: Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees S.A. v. Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR 376

arbitration. See ARBITRATION (Stay of proceedings)

burden of proof

burden on applicant to satisfy court that stay is proper course of action: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd. v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 354

stay of proceedings on ground of forum non conveniens only granted if court satisfied that different forum of competent jurisdiction more appropriate, i.e. in which case could be tried more suitably in interests of all parties and justice—respondent to show stay to be granted, but respective parties to demonstrate existence of matters to assist their case—if foreign forum prima facie forum conveniens, applicant to show special circumstances for hearing trial in Guernsey: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

discretion of court

in exercise of discretion under Arbitration (Guernsey) Law 1982, s.4, court generally to allow application for stay of proceedings unless defendant shows good reason why dispute should not be referred to arbitration—pending application for summary judgment not enough: States v. Miller & Baird (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 295

eviction proceedings. See LANDLORD AND TENANT (Eviction proceedings—stay of proceedings)

forum non conveniens. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisdiction—forum conveniens), (Parallel foreign proceedings—stay of Guernsey proceedings)

parallel foreign proceedings

delay in bringing action in England under exclusive jurisdiction clause may result in refusal to stay parallel Guernsey proceedings to await English result—refusal more likely if same issue already decided in Guernsey proceedings after full argument: Ladbrokes PLC v. Galaxy Intl. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 101

in giving active assistance to recognized foreign liquidator, no automatic stay of existing Guernsey interpleader proceedings—court has discretion how to give assistance—may continue interpleader proceedings to allow determination of ownership of assets disputed in foreign liquidation: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd. v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 354

notwithstanding clause exclusively in favour of foreign jurisdiction, stay of proceedings in Guernsey on ground of forum non conveniens may be declined if matter involves interests of parties other than those bound by clause, or, since desirable to avoid parallel foreign proceedings and inconsistent decisions, if grounds of claim not subject of clause part of relevant dispute: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 562

stay of Guernsey proceedings on ground of forum non conveniens only if another available and competent forum more appropriate, i.e., more suitable in interests of all parties and ends of justice: In re A & MC Trust (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [8]

stay of parallel foreign proceedings if applicant shows Guernsey clearly and distinctly more appropriate jurisdiction to hear claims—may be granted notwithstanding exclusive jurisdiction clause specifying foreign jurisdiction if Guernsey clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum or only available jurisdiction to hear all claims and stay protects Guernsey proceedings, e.g. statutory insolvency proceedings: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

stay of proceedings on ground of forum non conveniens only if defendant shows another jurisdiction clearly and distinctly more appropriate than Guernsey—Guernsey courts competent to deal with unfamiliar issues if careful preparation and co-operation by advocates—action as of right in Guernsey (e.g. by Guernsey company), and foreign proceedings after and as result of Guernsey litigation strongly weigh against stay: Healthspan Ltd. v. Healthy Direct Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 193

parallel Guernsey proceedings

if separate proceedings related (e.g. same parties and issues), may stay one (some) pending decision of other(s)—insufficiently related if merely common ground between claims—contract action based on same facts as another but alleging different contract and terms not to be stayed—usually desirable that only one suit and decision—may obtain stay on party’s application or on court’s own initiative: G v. G (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [7]

stay of winding up. See COMPANIES (Compulsory winding up—stay of winding up)

stay to enable arbitration

once proceedings stayed to allow arbitration, court abandons power to make orders concerning proceedings—no power to amend by increasing amount claimed: Wrench v. Albany Hotel Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [20]

Striking out. See Costs—security for costs. Dismissal for want of prosecution. Dismissal for want of prosecution—delay. Pleading—striking out. COMPANIES (Derivative action—striking out)

Submission to jurisdiction. See Costs—jurisdiction. CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisdiction—personal jurisdiction). COURTS (Court of Alderney—jurisdiction), (Royal Court—jurisdiction), (Seneschal’s Court—jurisdiction)

Summary judgment. See Judgments and orders—summary judgment. FAMILY LAW (Financial provision—consent order)

Summons. See Commencement of proceedings—summons. Service of documents—summons

Taxation of costs. See Costs—taxation of costs

Transcripts. See Hearing—transcripts

Trial of preliminary issue

exclusive jurisdiction clauses

court has jurisdiction under lex fori to determine as preliminary issue whether exclusive jurisdiction clause validly incorporated in contract, without deciding upon meaning and scope: Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. v. Winnetka Trading Corp. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [29]

factors to be considered

court to balance duties under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, rr. 1(1) and 38—to consider whether proposed preliminary issue causes further delay, frustration or expense; proportionate to complexity of issue, sum involved and financial positions of parties; neither party to suffer unfair advantage or disadvantage: Prentice v. Landsbanki Guernsey Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [12]

in proceedings for unfair dismissal, undesirable for preliminary issue to be raised and appealed separately, since may preclude quick and cost-effective disposal of proceedings as intended by Employment Protection (Guernsey) Law 1998: Garenne Group Ltd. v. Falla (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [15]

party seeking trial to circulate precise draft of issue to court and other parties at or after first case management conference and well before proposed hearing—court only likely to proceed if issue specific and properly formulated: Woodbourne Trustees Ltd. v. Generali Worldwide Ins. Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 131

trial of preliminary issue not just or convenient if causes further expense and sought by corporate defendants against individual plaintiff who has suffered financial loss: Prentice v. Landsbanki Guernsey Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [12]

incorporation of jurisdiction clauses

Guernsey court may take preliminary decision as to incorporation of jurisdiction clause by reference to Guernsey law as lex fori—once lex causae established, to be used for definitive decision: Winnetka Trading Corp. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 260

questions of fact

court not to determine questions of fact in preliminary hearing—entitled to decline to hear preliminary issue if cannot be properly resolved without evidence even if previously agreed to hear issue: Perpetual Media Capital Ltd. v. Enevoldsen (C.A.), 2014 GLR 57

“Unless” order. See Costs—security for costs

Variation of registration. See Judgments and orders—registration

Wasted costs. See Costs—wasted costs

Withdrawal and discontinuance of action. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Parallel foreign proceedings—restraint of foreign proceedings). INJUNCTIONS (Anti-suit injunction)

Without notice applications. See Ex parte applications

“Without prejudice as to costs” offer to settle. See Costs—offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs”. Settlement of proceedings—offer to settle made “without prejudice as to costs”

“Without prejudice” communications. See EVIDENCE (Privilege—“without prejudice” communications)