Subject-Matter Index

Abuse of process. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal

Access to courts. See HUMAN RIGHTS (Right to fair trial—access to courts)

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

Apparent bias. See Fair trial—bias. Récusation—bias

Appeal as of right. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—appeal as of right

Appeals. See Court of Appeal. Court of Appeal—appeals against decisions of Jurats. Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—appeal on finding of fact. Juvenile Court—appeals to Royal Court. Royal Court—appeals from Court of Alderney. Royal Court—appeals from Juvenile Court. Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court. Royal Court—Jurats. Royal Court—leave to appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Appeals). CIVIL PROCEDURE (Appeals)

Appeals to Privy Council. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council

Bias. See Fair trial—bias. Récusation—bias. Seneschal’s Court—role of Seneschal

Breach of court order. See Contempt of court—breach of court order

Citation of precedents. See Law reports—citation

Comity. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Comity)

Constitution of Royal Court. See Royal Court—Jurats

Contempt of court

breach of court order

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 to appeal granted against court’s refusal to permit amendment of committal application to allege breach of different order—Lieutenant Bailiff arguably erred in law that amendment to committal applications only granted in limited circumstances: Tchenguiz v. Akers (C.A.), 2018 GLR N [3]

no leave (under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.8) to serve committal notice out of jurisdiction 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

principles to be followed on application for leave to amend application to commit for contempt: In re Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR N [4]

Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to punish breaches of its orders so as to enforce compliance and punish interference with administration of justice—third party may be liable for contempt if breaches order or aids and abets breach by another: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

contempt committed overseas

Royal Court has 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

Guernsey customary law

Guernsey law of contempt of court entirely customary and similar to English common law of contempt—recognizes “unhelpful” distinction between civil and criminal contempt—civil enforces compliance with court order, criminal punishes disobedience: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

Coroner. See Magistrate’s Court—Coroner

Court of Alderney

appeals. See Royal Court—appeals from Court of Alderney

constitution of court

effectively lay court normally composed of Jurats presided over by legally qualified Greffier—not normal for Greffier to retire with Jurats, who may therefore write own judgments—judgments to be viewed as a whole and in context: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

judgment

reasons for decision

court 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

jurisdiction

action to enforce compliance with oath of Alderney executor to produce true and proper account of administration may be heard in Court of Alderney, but also falls within Royal Court’s inherent jurisdiction: Mateus v. Walters (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [13]

court empowered by Government of Alderney Law 1987, s.17(2) and inherent jurisdiction to create and develop procedural rules and, in their absence, regulate procedure through ad hoc orders in particular cases—includes power to order interrogatories or notices to admit facts—in absence of own procedural rules, court to be guided by Royal Court Civil Rules—need for procedural certainty not to preclude making ad hoc rules: Laughton v. Jackie Main (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 1

if both Royal Court and Court of Alderney have jurisdiction and defendant makes no challenge, deemed to submit to jurisdiction of plaintiff’s choice of court when leave to proceed obtained: Mateus v. Walters (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [13]

Court of Appeal

administration of complex orders

may make implementation of complex orders responsibility of Royal Court—largely non-resident constitution of Court of Appeal makes supervising administration of complex orders undesirable: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

appeal as of right. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council

appeals against decision of Jurats

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

appeals against decisions of Jurats

appeal only to be allowed if verdict of Jurats obviously wrong—holders of judicial office with considerable experience of criminal trials: X v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2017 GLR N [2]

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 probably unable to interfere with verdict of Jurats given without reasons unless verdict “obviously and palpably wrong”—no jurisdiction, as in England, to set aside verdict merely because “unsafe” or about which entertains “lurking doubt”—function of fact-finding reserved to Jurats: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

not for Court of Appeal in criminal appeal to make new judgment on basis of trial transcript and documents—to decide whether open to Jurats to decide charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, or whether verdict so fundamentally flawed that obviously and palpably wrong: G v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 190

principles: (a) jurisdiction more limited than English Court of Appeal (cannot set aside decision merely because “unsafe”); (b) appeal only allowed if verdict of Jurats obviously wrong—holders of judicial office with considerable experience of criminal trials; and (c) Court of Appeal to bear in mind that function of fact finding reserved to Royal Court which has advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses: X v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2017 GLR N [2]

appeals against exercise of Royal Court’s discretion. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Appeals—appeals against exercise of discretion)

appeals from Magistrate’s Court

Court of Appeal has no power to intervene in sentence where original conviction before Magistrate’s Court: Law Officers v. Carter (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 102

leave required to appeal to Court of Appeal against conviction in Magistrate’s Court—appeal to be on question of law alone or with Bailiff’s certificate that sufficient grounds of appeal exist (Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Appeals) (Guernsey) Law 1988, s.7)—where no certificate granted, leave to appeal on questions of fact refused: Law Officers v. Carter (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 102

appeals from Royal Court. See Royal Court—leave to appeal

appeals to Privy Council

appeal as of right

although appeal as of right in specified cases (under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16), application for leave nevertheless required for court to decide whether appeal lies under s.16—if no evidence of value of matter in dispute (under s.16, to be at least £500), court to exercise discretion as to whether to grant leave: Smith v. Slawther (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [11]

appeal as of right in civil cases where matter in dispute over £500—Court of Appeal may refuse leave if no genuinely disputable issue raised, or abuse of process: A v. R (P.C.), 2018 GLR 66

even though civil appeal apparently as of right under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16 if value of matter in dispute £500 or over, leave of Court of Appeal nevertheless required under Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, Schedule II, r.2,—inherent jurisdiction to refuse leave if appeal clear abuse of process: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

in interests of justice, appeal to be made within reasonable time—fact that appeal as of right may be factor in determining what is reasonable—court to refuse application if no reason for applicant’s significant delay, and otherwise clear prejudice to respondent: Smith v. Slawther (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [11]

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

no appeal as of right under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16 unless money claim for £500 or more—inapplicable to claim in which no sum in dispute, e.g. claim to impose or raise freezing order: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

no appeal as of right under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16 unless success in “matter in dispute” will profit applicant by £500 or more—if successful appeal would restore applicant’s unfavourable situation in trial court (e.g. property vested in wife alone rather than jointly with applicant), matter in dispute not “worth” £500 or more: E v. E (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 236

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16, appeal as of right only from “decision” of Court of Appeal—“decision” final, not merely interlocutory: Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Hutcheson (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 403

appeal on finding of fact

assessment of factual evidence is matter for Jurats—where concurrent findings of fact made in Royal Court and Court of Appeal, Judicial Committee to decline to review evidence for third time: Vekaplast Windows (C.I.) Ltd. v. Jehan (P.C.), 1997–99 GLR 410

leave to appeal

leave to cross-appeal to Privy Council only granted if arguable issue of sufficient general public importance: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [3]

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 issue of law of public importance for which leave should be granted if decision of Court of Appeal not based on that issue and different decision by Judicial Committee would not affect outcome of appeal: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

role of Court of Appeal to screen applications for leave to ensure points of law of general public importance and avoid wasting Privy Council’s time: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16, no appeal to Judicial Committee with leave from decision of Court of Appeal unless point of law of great and general public importance involved: Canivet Webber Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Guernsey Fin. Servs. Commn. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR N [6]

urgent need to consider change of law requiring leave to appeal, whether time limits needed and restrictions on types of appeal desirable: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

binding force of English decisions

English Court of Appeal decisions not binding but generally followed—where two conflicting lines of English authority, may choose which line to follow: States v. Miller & Baird (C.I.) Ltd. (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 295

binding force of own previous decision

Court of Appeal not bound by own earlier decisions, but only departed from for good, clear reasons: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 218

Court of Appeal not bound by own previous decisions—at liberty to depart from previous decision if appeal raises important constitutional and procedural issues—may select 7-judge court to give added weight to decision to review previous 3-judge judgment: Wicks v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 482

Court of Appeal not to depart from own comparatively recent decision, especially in area of law where certainty particularly important, e.g. real property—may depart from decision if satisfied that clearly wrong: Jubilee Scheme 3 Ltd. v. Capita Symonds Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 25

Court of Appeal usually bound by own previous decision but entitled to reopen it in exceptional circumstances or depart from it if given per incuriam in ignorance of statutory provision to contrary—if previous decision purports to interpret statutory provision, normally binding but may depart from it if obiter or distinguishable on facts—once departs from it, later court may give own authoritative interpretation: E v. E (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 374

not bound by own earlier decision but should be followed (especially when already endorsed by another Court of Appeal) unless court convinced that earlier decision wrong in principle: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

constitution of court

largely non-resident constitution of Court of Appeal makes supervising administration of complex appellate orders undesirable: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

may select 7-judge court to give added weight to review (and if necessary depart from) previous 3-judge decision raising important constitutional and procedural issues—choice of Guernsey, Jersey, English and Scottish members of panel also gives added weight to review: Wicks v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 482

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

jurisdiction

abridgement of time for appeal—single Judge may give directions (under Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, rr. 3 and 17, or inherent jurisdiction) designed to accelerate appeal hearing by ordering service of notice of appeal before expiry of statutory period if justice demands earlier hearing, e.g. if decision needed before critical loan falls due without prospect of renewal: In re F (C.A.), 2013 GLR 388

although exception usually to be entered before cause inscribed on Rôle, under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.14 Court of Appeal may exercise jurisdiction of Royal Court 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

appeal from Royal Court sitting as Full Court—despite absence of specific provision in Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, ss. 13–14 to hear further appeal from Full Court on appeal against decision of Island Development Committee: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

civil jurisdiction of Cour des Jugements et Records transferred to Court of Appeal—court has jurisdiction to hear claim for administrative remedy (i.e. quashing decision of H.M. Procureur to issue notices under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1991): Bassington v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 180

Court of Appeal may use jurisdiction of Royal Court under Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Appeals) (Guernsey) Law 1988, s.6(3) to quash acquittal and remit case for rehearing: Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

Court of Appeal to consider, of own initiative if necessary, whether has jurisdiction over case before it: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

court’s supervisory powers limited to those in Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.25(1)—if no misdirection, appeal only allowed if Jurats’ verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported on evidence—court not to review evidence: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

inherent jurisdiction to accelerate appeal process by abridging time for service of notice of appeal if justice demands earlier hearing, e.g. if decision needed before critical loan falls due without prospect of renewal: In re F (C.A.), 2013 GLR 388

inherent jurisdiction to refuse leave to appeal to Privy Council if appeal clear abuse of process: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

planning law. See PLANNING LAW (Appeals—jurisdiction)

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]

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, art. 25, court may set aside appeal against conviction if unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, wrong decision on question of law, or miscarriage of justice for any reason—no jurisdiction to set aside decision merely on ground that “unsafe,” i.e. would have reached different conclusion on facts or attached different significance to evidence before Magistrate: Guest v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [1]

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, has all powers of Royal Court sitting as Cour des Jugements et Records—may, instead of remitting matter to Royal Court, hear matter itself in interests of avoiding delay: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

leave to appeal. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal. Royal Court—leave to appeal

matters of law. See Court of Appeal—role as appellate court

point not argued. See Court of Appeal—role as appellate court

precedent. See Court of Appeal—binding force of own previous decision

preparation of bundles

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

role as appellate court

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

stay of execution. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Stay of execution—application to European Court of Human Rights)

stay of Royal Court judgment pending appeal. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Stay of execution)

Cross-appeals. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal

Duties of advocates. See ADVOCATES (Duties to court)

Ecclesiastical Court

procedure

in absence of Ecclesiastical Court rules of procedure, conduct or disclosure, under inherent jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical Court (Jurisdiction) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1994, s.3, Royal Court may give directions, e.g. if Ecclesiastical Court inadvertently assists fraud by granting probate, may grant Norwich Pharmacal order to disclose relevant documents: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

European Court of Human Rights

role in Guernsey judicial system

since European Court not further appellate court in Guernsey judicial system (including Judicial Committee), its decision has no direct effect on judgments in Guernsey courts: Murfitt v. States (Alderney) (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [10]

Fair trial

bias

apparent bias

Jurat and complainant’s father had both worked in relatively large medical centre—no evidence of working relationship which might give rise to apprehension of bias and Jurat retired—insufficient to establish apparent bias: Le Huray v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2024 GLR 136

test whether fair-minded and informed observer would conclude real possibility or real danger that Jurat biased—observer would take account of role of Jurats in Guernsey—court to identify matters said to give rise to real possibility of bias and identify logical connection between those matters and bias—bare assertion that Jurat has connection to witness insufficient: Le Huray v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2024 GLR 136

Friday Court. See LANDLORD AND TENANT (Eviction proceedings—procedure)

Hearing in private. See Royal Court—appeals from Juvenile Court. CIVIL PROCEDURE (Hearing—hearing in private). CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Hearing—hearing in private)

Independent and impartial tribunal. See HUMAN RIGHTS (Right to fair trial—independent and impartial tribunal)

Inherent jurisdiction. See Court of Alderney—jurisdiction. Royal Court—jurisdiction. Seneschal’s Court—jurisdiction

Judge as witness. See EVIDENCE (Witnesses—Judge as witness)

Judge of Magistrate’s Court. See Magistrate’s Court—Coroner

Judge of Royal Court. See Magistrate’s Court—Coroner

Judge’s retirement with Jurats. See Royal Court—Jurats

Judicial Committee of Privy Council

appeal as of right

appeal as of right in civil cases where matter in dispute over £500—Court of Appeal may refuse leave if no genuinely disputable issue raised, or abuse of process: A v. R (P.C.), 2018 GLR 66

in interests of justice, appeal to be made within reasonable time—fact that appeal as of right may be factor in determining what is reasonable—no appeal if no reason for applicant’s significant delay, and otherwise clear prejudice to respondent: Smith v. Slawther (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [11]

leave of Court of Appeal required for civil matter over £500 by Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982, Schedule II, r.2, even though appeal apparently as of right under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16—inherent jurisdiction to refuse leave if appeal clear abuse of process: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16, appeal as of right only from “decision” of Court of Appeal—“decision” should be final, not merely interlocutory: Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Hutcheson (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 403

appeal on finding of fact

binding force of decisions

not binding in Guernsey if on appeal from another jurisdiction—Guernsey court only bound by ratio of decision not necessarily by reasoning of majority: In re X (A Bankrupt) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 248

not binding in Guernsey if on appeal from another jurisdiction—persuasive guidance to Guernsey courts if authoritative statement of English trusts law, subject to Guernsey law or other local features: A Ltd. v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 593

leave to appeal

applicant refused leave to appeal by Court of Appeal because points of law deemed to be of insufficient general public importance may apply to Judicial Committee for special leave—Court of Appeal to act as initial tribunal for screening applications, avoiding waste of Judicial Committee’s time: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2015 GLR 420

leave to cross-appeal to Privy Council only granted if arguable issue of sufficient general public importance: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd. v. Glenalla Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [3]

no appeal unless far-reaching question of law or matter of dominant public importance requiring attention of final appellate tribunal: Hulme v. Matheson Secs. (Channel Islands) Ltd. (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 65

no leave to appeal against interlocutory decisions—Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16 limited to final decisions: Hulme v. Matheson Secs. (Channel Islands) Ltd. (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 65

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.16, no leave to appeal unless arguable point of law of general public importance: Smith v. Atlantique Holdings Ltd. (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [10]

urgent need to consider change of law requiring leave to appeal, whether time limits needed and restrictions on types of appeal desirable: Pirito v. Curth (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR 34

point not argued

improper for Judicial Committee to consider 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

no appeal on ground available on previous appeal to Judicial Committee but not then relied on—wrong to re-open case merely because appellant belatedly advised that plausible ground for appeal exists, especially if inordinate delay: Sherry v. R. (P.C.), 2013 GLR 64

Judicial law-making. See Role of judiciary—judicial law-making

Jurats. See Court of Appeal—appeals against decisions of Jurats. Royal Court—Jurats

Jurisdiction

Court of Alderney. See Court of Alderney—jurisdiction

Court of Appeal. See Court of Appeal—jurisdiction

court’s obligation to ensure jurisdiction

court to consider, of own initiative if necessary, whether has jurisdiction over case before it: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

exclusive jurisdiction of Guernsey court. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisdiction—exclusive jurisdiction clauses)

inherent jurisdiction. See Court of Alderney—jurisdiction. Royal Court—jurisdiction

Magistrate’s Court. See Magistrate’s Court—jurisdiction

Royal Court. See Royal Court—jurisdiction. TRUSTS (Supervision by court)

Seneschal’s Court. See Seneschal’s Court—jurisdiction

Juvenile Court

appeals to Royal Court

grounds of appeal—in absence of detailed grounds in Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Appeals) (Guernsey) Law 1988, s.1, grounds stated in Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.25(1) to be used—verdict unreasonable or not supported by evidence, wrong decision of law, or miscarriage of justice: X v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 265

hearing in private—in absence of rules prescribing who may be present at hearing of appeal from Juvenile Court, inherent jurisdiction of Royal Court enables it to choose to sit in private, allowing only presence of persons permitted to attend hearings in Juvenile Court by Criminal Justice (Children and Juvenile Court Reform) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008, s.8: X v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 265

test on appeal—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

Law reports

citation

if case cited has been reported in Guernsey Law Reports, that report to be produced to court: Dodd v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2015 GLR 123

Leave to appeal. See Court of Appeal—appeals to Privy Council. Judicial Committee of Privy Council—leave to appeal. Royal Court—leave to appeal. CIVIL PROCEDURE (Appeals). CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Appeals—extension of time for appeal), (Appeals—leave to appeal)

Magistrate’s Court

appeals from Royal Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeals to Court of Appeal. See Court of Appeal—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeals to Royal Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeals from Magistrate’s Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeals to Magistrate’s Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

constitution of Royal Court. See Royal Court—Jurats

grounds of appeal—in absence of detailed grounds in Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Appeals) (Guernsey) Law 1988, s.1, grounds stated in Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.25(1) to be used—unreasonable verdict, verdict not supported by evidence, wrong decision of law, or miscarriage of justice: A v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 22

Coroner

in absence of statutory appeal provision, Royal Court has power to review decisions of Coroner as part of general jurisdiction to review decisions of inferior bodies—may quash verdict of inquest in appropriate circumstances: Kirk v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [23]

Judge of Magistrate’s Court usually sits as Coroner but Judge of Royal Court ex officio power to sit in Magistrate’s Court as Coroner in suitable case: In re Schofield (Magistrate’s Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 353

decision of Magistrate

essence of judgment in Magistrate’s Court to inform defendant briefly and clearly why found guilty—Judge’s explanation that accepted evidence of complainant and rejected accused’s sufficient if reasonable and supported by evidence: A v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 22

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 understands basis on which judge acts: Henry v. Veloso (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [31]

to set out facts and findings based on them to enable accused to understand conviction—no elaborate form of words or judgment (as such) needed but statement of grounds of decision required to satisfy European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6—not necessary to set out details of assessment of evidence: Allen v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [26]

inquests. See Magistrate’s Court—jurisdiction

Judge of Magistrate’s Court. See Magistrate’s Court—Coroner

jurisdiction

inquests—English Coroners Rules 1984 followed in Guernsey subject to necessary modifications, e.g. coroner’s jurisdiction vested in Magistrate’s Court and no jury used—also subject to “procedural aspect” of European Convention, art. 2(1) requiring expansion of Coroners Rules, r.36(1)(b) to give narrative verdict determining not “how” but “by what means and in what circumstances” death occurred when deceased in custody of agents of state (e.g. in prison)—r.42 still precludes determining matters of criminal or civil liability: In re Schofield (Magistrate’s Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 353

no statutory jurisdiction or procedural authority to order forfeiture of recognizance—recognizance only enforceable as action for civil debt owed by surety to Crown and subject to financial limits of court’s civil jurisdiction: Law Officers v. De Jersey (Magistrate’s Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [2]

Ordinary Court. See ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Judicial review—Royal Court)

Powers of Seneschal of Sark. See Seneschal’s Court—jurisdiction

Precedent. See Court of Appeal—binding force of own previous decision. Royal Court—correction of own errors. JURISPRUDENCE (Precedent)

Private communication to judge. See ADVOCATES (Professional etiquette—private communication to judge)

Reasons for Jurats’ decision. See Royal Court—Jurats

Récusation

bias

apparent bias

Bailiff should recuse himself as lacking objective appearance of independence and impartiality required by European Convention, art. 6 if case concerns law/rule passed by States of Deliberation actively presided over by him: McGonnell v. UK (E.C.H.R.), 2000–02 GLR 20

court to decide on evidence whether, in circumstances, fair-minded, informed observer would conclude real possibility or real danger of judge’s bias—appeal judge can assume viewpoint of fair-minded, informed observer—appeal judge’s professional training and oath allow him to set aside prejudices when judging: Burton v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [31]

in Guernsey, court officers inevitably know each other professionally—recusing appeal judge because of concern of apparent bias from working relationship with court officers would cause administrative difficulty—not reason to allow judge to sit if reasonable possibility of bias: Burton v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [31]

in proceedings in Sark by landlord for eviction of tenant (for breach of repairing covenant), risk of apparent bias where Seneschal recently nominated landlord for election as Conseiller—failure to draw parties’ attention to nomination renders trial unfair: Rogers v. Moerman (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR 327

role of Seneschal. See Seneschal’s Court—role of Seneschal

Role of judiciary

judicial law-making

court may regulate own procedure and adopt English practice if fair to do so—may grant declaration in respect of uncontested application when no other remedy sought, if no prejudice to persons not before court: In re Westbury Property Fund Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 176

court unwilling to engage in law-making by re-writing Practice Direction No. 5 of 2008 (for use of screens) to incorporate overriding principle of “interests of justice” as in Live-Link Evidence (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance 2008, s.1(2)(c)—court sympathetic to objective but wrong mode of change, if relying on modern English common law reaches same result: Law Officers v. Pinto (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 76

effective creation of interlocutory appellate procedure by allowing judicial review of Royal Court’s interlocutory ruling, beyond powers of courts and any change to be made by statute and not by judicial decision: Law Officers v. Taylor (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [2]

extending Lord Lowry’s “aids to navigation,” court to be cautious about removing “known difficulty” not only when legislature fails to do so, but also when purports to have made statutory exceptions to it—court to achieve finality and certainty—changing accrual of cause of action in tort to date plaintiff had reasonable knowledge of damage incompatible with knowledge-based exceptions to prescription in Reform (Tort) (Guernsey) Law 1979: Holdright Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Willis Corroon Management (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 60

Guernsey courts able to develop common law in suitable cases as part of evolutionary growth of law suitable for local community—making award of interim damages not such case: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 1

Guernsey courts able to develop common law in suitable cases as part of evolutionary growth of law suitable for local community—ordering joint medical experts’ report not such case: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 11

Guernsey courts able to develop common law of curatelle to meet changing social conditions—may follow other jurisdictions applying developed Roman law of curatela (e.g. Scotland) and extend powers of curateur and court’s supervisory jurisdiction over curatelle to give powers to recommend and approve dispositions of incapable’s estate to save foreign inheritance tax otherwise payable on his death—immaterial that no immediate benefit to incapable personally or that disposition continues after end of curatelle: In re X (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 387

Guernsey courts may be able to develop common law to allow for structured settlements with mixture of lump sum and periodical payments (rather than only lump sum awards) in awarding damages in personal injuries cases, though legislative change may be preferable: Simon v. Helmot (P.C.), 2011–12 GLR 517

if no statutory prescription period specified for crimes in statutory regime, court unable to create one: Bach v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 354

in small jurisdiction such as Guernsey, with limited resources for promoting legislation, Royal Court may make good obvious deficiency by judicial law-making—diminished responsibility as defence to murder introduced by incorporating English law: Law Officers v. Harvey (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 189

inherent jurisdiction of court not to be used to change substantive law—limited to giving court procedural powers to act meaningfully as court and not dictated by need for fairness and justice—making award of interim damages is substantive change not authorized by inherent jurisdiction: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 1

inherent jurisdiction of court not to be used to change substantive law—limited to giving court procedural powers to act meaningfully as court and not dictated by need for fairness and justice—parties’ rights to call witnesses of choice and manner of evidence substantive rights not subject to change by inherent jurisdiction—cannot order joint medical experts’ report: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 11

Lord Lowry’s “five aids to navigation”

not satisfied so as to allow development of “stigma” damages for wrongful dismissal from employment—doubtful and uncertain solution; would alter well-established common law employment relationship; States enacted employment protection legislation without referring to or changing law on damages for manner of dismissal: Good v. Crédit Suisse (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 183

to be considered in judicial law-making—(a) if solution doubtful, judges to beware of imposing own remedy; (b) to be cautious if legislature has failed to legislate to clear up “known difficulty”; (c) better to concentrate on strictly legal solutions than deal in disputed matters of social policy; (d) fundamental legal doctrines not lightly to be set aside; and (e) changes to achieve finality and certainty—development of common law curatelle jurisdiction satisfies all criteria: In re X (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 387

to be considered in judicial law-making—court reluctant to develop law if would cause considerable uncertainty and change long-established, well-understood procedure, e.g. under Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order 1952, para. 2(5): Pirito v. Curth (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 571

to be considered in judicial law-making—court to be cautious if States reject opportunities to clear up “known difficulties” in law, and also if court aware that States considering legislative reform—may not grant liquidator’s application if Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 provides for discharge and release only of administrators, and aware that legislative changes being considered: In re Kingston Mgmt. (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 670

no creation of new law by courts if States have already legislated in area of law concerned “for removal of doubt” and failed to provide specifically for new law—no recognition of equitable assignment by courts when States have legislated for legal assignment (Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1979, s.2) but not provided for equitable assignment: Shaham v. Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 297

to help develop modern commercial jurisprudence, court has inherent jurisdiction to enjoin anti-suit proceedings in foreign jurisdiction whenever justice demands, e.g. to prevent exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction being used to avoid liability in insolvency proceedings under Companies (Guernsey) Law 1994 and impede right of appeal in Guernsey: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

under “aids to navigation,” court not to introduce English statutory scheme if (i) so complicated as to require legislative enactment; and (ii) States knew of English scheme when enacting new legislation in Guernsey and neglected to introduce it: Jackson v. Dear (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 167

when developing common law by reference to developments elsewhere, system of law in other jurisdiction to be similar to Guernsey’s—need also to consider make-up of Guernsey population and society to ensure that developments “consistent with needs of Guernsey community”—wish of Guernsey residents to make tax-efficient provision for families abroad important consideration in developing curatelle rules: In re X (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 387

when developing common law by reference to foreign law, specific area of foreign law to be similar to Guernsey’s—no similarity between French and Guernsey employment law—Guernsey law historically and practically developed by reference to English concepts and principles: Good v. Crédit Suisse (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 183

judicial policy-making

as only court with jurisdiction to impose sentences greater than 2 years’ imprisonment, Royal Court in position to develop Guernsey sentencing policy—court to state policy clearly, ideally identifying sentencing bands, and aggravating and mitigating features: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

procedural changes in 2008

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

Role of Seneschal of Sark. See Seneschal’s Court—role of Seneschal

Royal Court

amenability to judicial review. See ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Judicial review—Royal Court)

appeals from Court of Alderney

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

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]

judge alone to hear appeal under Court of Alderney (Appeals) Law 1969, s.2(1) if issue whether Jurats’ findings perverse—perversity question of law, not fact: Courtney v. Alderney Building Co. (1992) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [17]

proper for Royal Court to sit without Jurats when hearing civil appeal from Court of Alderney on ground of error of law or finding of fact: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

Royal Court may interfere with decision of Court of Alderney if error of law or insufficient evidence to support material finding of fact—test not whether Royal Court would have made same decision—if Court of Alderney failed to take matter of evidence into account, appeal allowed if decision flawed as result: Bohan v. Bithell (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR 347

appeals from Juvenile Court

appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeal against order under Domestic Proceedings and Magistrate’s Court (Guernsey) Law 1988, s.3, as amended, not by way of re-hearing—presumption that Magistrate’s findings of fact and decision on them correct and to be accepted by Royal Court unless perverse: A v. B (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [22]

Bailiff sits alone unless matters of fact to be considered—miscarriage of justice (third ground of appeal in Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.25(1)) not to be regarded as means of obtaining appeal with Jurats to decide matters of fact if in reality no such issues arise: Law Officers v. Blondel (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR N [1]

constitution of court. See Royal Court—Jurats

extension of time for appeal. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Appeals—extension of time for appeal)

proper for Royal Court to sit without Jurats when hearing civil appeal from Guernsey Magistrate’s Court on ground of error of law or finding of fact: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

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

Royal Court not to interfere with Magistrate’s findings of fact unless no supporting evidence or no reasonable judge could have made them—court to consider whether verdict obviously and palpably wrong: Le Billon v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 276

appeals from Seneschal’s Court

proper for Royal Court to sit without Jurats when hearing civil appeal from Seneschal’s Court of Sark on ground of error of law or finding of fact: Cyma Petroleum (C.I.) Ltd. v. States (C.A.), 2015 GLR 1

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 opportunity 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]

constitution of court. See Royal Court—appeals from Court of Alderney. Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court. Royal Court—appeals from Seneschal’s Court. Royal Court—Jurats

correction of own errors

no power to reconsider and change own order simply because believes incorrect in law or otherwise unjust—no error if law as believed to exist at time of previous decision now changed, and therefore no error to correct: Sherry v. R. (P.C.), 2013 GLR 64

Full Court. See Court of Appeal—grounds of appeal. Court of Appeal—jurisdiction. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Judicial review—Royal Court)

hearing in private. See Royal Court—appeals from Juvenile Court. Royal Court—jurisdiction. CIVIL PROCEDURE (Hearing—hearing in private)

inherent jurisdiction. See Royal Court—jurisdiction

Judge of Royal Court

ex officio power to sit in Magistrate’s Court and act as Coroner in suitable cases: In re Schofield (Magistrate’s Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 353

Jurats

although under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, s.79, Bailiff enabled to sit alone in determining matters under Law, under Royal Court Reform (Guernsey) Law 2008, ss. 14 and 16 may retire with Jurats—if court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over trust, even though no surrender of discretion by trustee, decision will involve exercise of court’s discretion to decide what just and reasonable, and therefore to be expected that Jurats will sit more often than not: In re NAO Settlement (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [4]

appeals from Court of Alderney. See Royal Court—appeals from Court of Alderney

appeals from Magistrate’s Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Magistrate’s Court

appeals from Seneschal’s Court. See Royal Court—appeals from Seneschal’s Court

as holders of judicial office, Jurats more experienced in law and procedure than ordinary jurors—very difficult to challenge their criminal verdicts as unreasonable: Taylor v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 207

costs—Jurats not ordinarily involved in decisions as to costs—presiding judge normally to decide costs but Jurats to determine matters of fact giving rise to costs, e.g. whether executor took costs from estate outside terms of charging clause: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

decision of Jurats as matter of fact that Committee decision reasonable conclusive even though majority decision—minority disagreement not to be taken as indicative of possibility of unreasonableness: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

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

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

Jurats needed to hear winding-up proceedings if disputed questions of fact require decision, e.g. whether company unable to pay debts—may be appropriate to make decision on basis of affidavits from parties, with counsel providing statement of issues for decision: Ladbrokes PLC v. Galaxy Intl. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 101

Jurats not required to sit on appeal from Magistrate’s Court when grounds of appeal are unreasonable verdict, insufficient evidence, error of law or miscarriage of justice (on ground of prosecution disclosure)—questions of law for judge sitting alone: A v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 22

Jurats required if contested matters of primary fact to be resolved—judge may himself decide what conclusions to draw from agreed facts detailed in affidavits sworn for purpose of case: Fidelity Management Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [14]

no requirement in European Convention that lay fact-finders (Jurats) required in appeals from Magistrate’s Court—hearing of appeal by legally-qualified judicial officer sitting alone proper if oral hearing, previous written arguments, reasoned decision in accordance with law, with power to uphold, quash, or remit decision decision to lower court: A v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 22

on appeal against decision of Jurats, Court of Appeal only to interfere if no evidence on which Jurats 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]

preferable for Jurats to participate in trust proceedings where possible, although Royal Court validly constituted with judge alone: In re C Trust (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 105

presiding judge should retire with Jurats to reach common decision on exercise of court’s discretion on application for variation of trust—appropriate for all applications under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 1989 (not concerning question of pure law for judge alone) involving discretion in supervising or intervening in Guernsey trust: In re H Trust (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 118

reasons for decision—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

sentencing

following guilty verdict, under 1950 Law, s.8(1) Judge and Jurats to confer in private as to sentence, and Judge to announce decision without revealing whether made unanimously or by majority: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

if guilt of offender in issue, Jurats confer but no obligation to reach unanimous verdict—no entitlement to expect formal directions on sentencing from Judge in open court, but prosecuting counsel have duty to assist court in sentencing matters when asked, and individual Jurats may ask questions on any issue requiring clarification: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

if guilt of offender in issue, Jurats confer but no obligation to reach unanimous verdict—senior Jurat to announce in court whether unanimous or majority verdict, in the latter case recording votes for and against decision: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

important to consider views of Royal Court in setting sentencing levels within statutory maxima—independence of Jurats and election by community specially qualify them to reflect local concerns: Wicks v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 482

since elected by Guernsey public for independence and disinterestedness, role of Jurats distinguishes Guernsey legal system from that of other jurisdictions—in sentencing, no obligation to follow English case-law or authorities: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

stay of execution—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

under Royal Court (Miscellaneous Reform Provisions) Law 1950, s.6(2)(a), Bailiff sole judge of law—following not guilty plea, presiding judge to direct Jurats on law and summarize relevant evidence—following guilty verdict, under 1950 Law, s.8(1) judge and Jurats to confer in private as to sentence, and Judge to announce decision without revealing whether made unanimously or by majority: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

jurisdiction

administration of complex Court of Appeal orders. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Judgments and orders—implementation of orders on appeal)

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

concurrent jurisdiction with Court of Seneschal in Sark but Islands are separate jurisdictions: Gomoll v. Ruggaber (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 113

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)—to take commonsense approach: Oscar Holdings Ltd. v. Sovereign Windows (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [2]

court may award remuneration to trustees and trust protectors under inherent jurisdiction to supervise administration of trusts: In re Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR 13

court’s jurisdiction over civil claims arising in Sark concurrent with Seneschal’s Court and not merely residual—no exclusion of or limit to jurisdiction of Royal Court by Court of the Seneschal (Increase of Jurisdiction and Transfer of Prisoners) Law 1971, s.1: Matthews v. Monaghan (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 53

eviction proceedings—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

inherent jurisdiction

based on necessity of giving court procedural powers to act meaningfully as court and not dictated by need for fairness and justice—not to be used to change substantive law—making award of interim damages is substantive change not authorized by inherent jurisdiction: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 1

based on necessity of giving court procedural powers to act meaningfully as court and not dictated by need for fairness and justice—not to be used to change substantive law—ordering joint medical experts’ report is substantive change not authorized by inherent jurisdiction: Angenent v. Pring (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 11

court has inherent jurisdiction to order 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—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

court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant “anti-anti-suit” injunctions not confined to particular categories of case, but may be invoked whenever administration of justice demands—may grant injunction restraining pursuit of anti-suit proceedings in foreign jurisdiction notwithstanding exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

gives power to 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

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

in absence of rules prescribing who may be present at hearing of appeal from Juvenile Court, Royal Court may use inherent jurisdiction to choose to sit in private, allowing only presence of persons permitted to attend hearings in Juvenile Court by Criminal Justice (Children and Juvenile Court Reform) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008, s.8: X v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 265

inherent jurisdiction to make declaration on legitimate status of child whenever necessary to do fullest justice to applicant—declaration not binding in rem but only for purposes and on parties before court: A Father v. H.M. Greffier (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 22

inherent jurisdiction to punish breaches of own orders to enforce compliance and punish interference with administration of justice: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

inherent jurisdiction to supervise and intervene in administration of trust is basis of court’s discretion to require trustees to give beneficiaries access to trust documents, subject to statutory duties in Trusts (Guernsey) Law 1989, s.22: A Ltd. v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 593

jurisdiction to extend time for appeal against revocation 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

jurisdiction to hear action to enforce compliance of Alderney executor with oath to produce true and proper account of administration—may also be heard in Court of Alderney: Mateus v. Walters (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [13]

jurisdiction under Royal Court (Costs and Fees) (Guernsey) Law 1969, s.1(1) to award costs against non-party—therefore inherent jurisdiction to make orders to ensure effectiveness of such order: Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 208

may grant declaration in respect of uncontested application, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction and paramount duty to do justice to plaintiff, if no prejudice to persons not before court—jurisdiction to order addition of electors to Electoral Roll if wrongly omitted by administrative error and publication of correct Roll: In re Registrar-Gen. of Electors (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 304

no inherent jurisdiction to extend customary powers of H.M. Sheriff in désastre (i.e. corporate insolvency) to personal insolvency by analogy: In re X (A Bankrupt) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 248

no inherent jurisdiction to extend foreign statutory bankruptcy procedure conferring powers on foreign trustee in bankruptcy to summon and examine witnesses to help trace Guernsey assets, based on combination of usefulness, generous view of analogy with Guernsey legislation, and reliance on “modified universalism” in insolvency law: In re X (A Bankrupt) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 248

no jurisdiction to order security for costs against non-party under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.82(1)(b)—therefore no inherent jurisdiction to make orders to ensure effectiveness of such order (e.g. disclosure of funding source an interlocutory stage): Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 208

no need to invoke inherent jurisdiction to accept trustee’s application to surrender discretion and exercise it—jurisdiction under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, ss. 68–69 sufficiently wide: In re Arasbridge Unit Trust (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 72

power to issue letter of request to foreign court to subpoena evidence in its jurisdiction to assist Royal Court proceedings derived from Royal Court’s inherent jurisdiction: Alpha Dev. Ltd. v. Barclays Wealth Trustees (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [4]

proper exercise of court’s inherent jurisdiction to give summary judgment in interpleader proceedings, even if not entitled to do so under Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.19—necessary for court to decide whether arguments bad in law at early stage of proceedings, resolve issues in most cost-effective way and ensure parties have full opportunity to be heard: EFG Private Bank (C.I.) Ltd v. B.C. Capital Group S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2014 GLR N [11]

Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to remedy previous sentencing errors, even if made many years previously, but error to be plainly established: In re Sherry (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [12]

under Trusts (Guernsey) Law 1989, s.4 and court’s inherent jurisdiction, court has jurisdiction to supervise and, where necessary, intervene in matters relating to discretionary, terminated trusts, including ordering disclosure of trust information or documents to excluded beneficiary if appropriate: Bathurst v. Kleinwort Benson (Channel Islands) Trustees Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [32]

when jurisdiction to grant remedy exists, inherent jurisdiction must also exist to make orders giving efficacy to that remedy: Jefcoate v. Spread Trustee Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 208

injunctions—Royal Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions other than interim injunctions (i.e. injunctions before judgment given) as wide as English courts’ under Supreme Court Act 1981, s.37(1): R.G. Ellis Ltd. v. Caxton Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 51

personal jurisdiction—jurisdiction over Sark litigation if parties submit to jurisdiction by giving address for service in Guernsey—applicable even though dispute concerns procedure for passing Sark conveyance in Seneschal’s Court: Barclay v. Beaumont (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [17]

submission to 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]

party submitting to jurisdiction by making application to court then unable to challenge jurisdiction—Registrar-General (H.M. Greffier) not joint party to application for declaration of legitimacy, since not required by statute to be joined to application and therefore not estopped: A Father v. H.M. Greffier (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 22

Royal Court has jurisdiction over Sark litigation if parties submit to jurisdiction by giving address for service in Guernsey—applicable even though dispute concerns procedure for passing Sark conveyance in Seneschal’s Court: Barclay v. Beaumont (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [17]

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)—nothing to prevent Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, 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]

supervisory jurisdiction

court’s supervisory powers. See MENTAL HEALTH (Curatelle—court’s supervisory powers)

Royal Court has same supervisory jurisdiction over administration of estates as over trusts—desirable for executor to seek directions of court if dispute over administration: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

trusts. See TRUSTS (Supervision by court)

territorial jurisdiction—no jurisdiction over non-resident allegedly aiding and abetting criminal offence wholly abroad: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

leave to appeal

by Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.15(e), leave to appeal to Court of Appeal required 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

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

if object or effect of appeal to delay trial or interlocutory hearing, leave not to be granted unless outcome of appeal may significantly affect hearing and substantial prospect of success: Sinclair v. Nicholson (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 101

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 may be granted if appeal involves matter of sufficient public interest and has significant prospect of success—burden of proof in relation to continuation of freezing order of sufficient public interest: Durtnell (R.) & Sons Ltd. v. Kaduna Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [9]

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 only granted if appeal has “real prospect of success”—may nevertheless be granted if applicant willing to comply with conditions as to payment into court and security for costs advanced by respondent: Musa Holdings Ltd. v. Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 383

may be granted if clearly arguable grounds for Royal Court decision and appeal has reasonable chance of success: H.M. Revenue & Customs v. Gresh (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 239

may be granted if desirable for higher court to consider issues and scrutinize Royal Court’s decision, e.g. if first time particular type of application before Guernsey courts: H.M. Revenue & Customs v. Gresh (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 239

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

role of judiciary. See Role of judiciary—procedural changes in 2008

sentencing

as only Guernsey court with jurisdiction to pass sentences greater than 2 years’ imprisonment, Royal Court in position to develop Guernsey sentencing policy—court to state policy clearly, ideally identifying sentencing bands, and aggravating and mitigating features: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

Guernsey courts not bound by English sentencing decisions and guidance, and no presumption in favour of following them, but court may take them into account if appropriate: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

since Jurats elected by Guernsey residents for independence and disinterestedness, role distinct from other jurisdictions—in sentencing, no obligation to follow English case-law or authorities: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

supervisory jurisdiction. See MENTAL HEALTH (Curatelle—court’s supervisory powers). TRUSTS (Supervision by court)

time for appeal

abridgement of time—time for service of notice of appeal may be abridged by directions from single Judge (under Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, rr. 3 and 17, or inherent jurisdiction) 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

Seneschal’s Court

appeals. See Royal Court—appeals from Seneschal’s Court

costs

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 in abuse of process—not “unreasonable” for cause to be presented 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]

jurisdiction

concurrent jurisdiction with Royal Court in Guernsey but Islands are separate jurisdictions: Gomoll v. Ruggaber (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 113

court has equitable jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture in eviction proceedings—on application by landlord for eviction order against tenant with lifetime lease at peppercorn rent (for breach of repairing covenant), Seneschal to consider whether to grant relief from forfeiture: Rogers v. Moerman (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR 327

court not creature of statute with limited jurisdiction: A v. R (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 214

A v. R (C.A.), 2017 GLR 105

A v. R (P.C.), 2018 GLR 66

Court of the Seneschal (Increase of Jurisdiction and Transfer of Prisoners) Law 1971, s.1 gives court unlimited jurisdiction to hear civil claims arising in Sark—no exclusion of or limitation to concurrent jurisdiction of Royal Court to do same: Matthews v. Monaghan (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 53

inherent jurisdiction—court has adequate jurisdiction to dispense justice as sole court in Sark—not limited to procedural matters—includes inherent jurisdiction founded on Sovereign’s parens patriae jurisdiction to protect children: A v. R (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 214

may cede jurisdiction over Sark litigation to Royal Court in Guernsey, even though dispute concerns procedure for passing Sark conveyance in Seneschal’s Court, if parties submit to Royal Court’s jurisdiction by giving address for service in Guernsey: Barclay v. Beaumont (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [17]

no residuary power to declare leases void as incumbrance and thus contrary to Letters Patent 1611: De Carteret v. Surcouf (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 366

no rule of law or practice that Royal Court’s concurrent civil jurisdiction to be exercised in complex case: A v. R (C.A.), 2017 GLR 105

sole court of justice in Sark with unlimited civil jurisdiction—not subordinate to Royal Court—may grant new substantive remedies under inherent jurisdiction equivalent to Royal Court: A v. R (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 214

sole court of justice in Sark with unlimited civil jurisdiction—not subordinate to Royal Court—under Sark customary law, Seneschal’s Court may order father to pay maintenance for illegitimate child: A v. R (P.C.), 2018 GLR 66

sole court of justice in Sark with unlimited civil jurisdiction—not subordinate to Royal Court—under Sark customary law, Seneschal’s Court may order parent to pay maintenance for illegitimate child: A v. R (C.A.), 2017 GLR 105

unless statutory constraint, jurisdiction as extensive as Royal Court: A v. R (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 214

presentation of case

advocates to work together to prepare and present case before Seneschal’s Court, e.g. by adequately setting out material facts and filing defences, so that Seneschal (not normally qualified lawyer and sitting alone) knows issues to be decided and can come to reasonable conclusion—court’s conclusion not satisfactory if case not fully and properly argued: de Carteret v. Mann (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [28]

role of Seneschal

Chief Pleas’ control of Seneschal’s remuneration out of public funds (under Sark (Reform) Law 2010) may lead to questioning of independence and impartiality in judicial role as chief judge, if seen in small jurisdiction as making vulnerable to personal pressures in deciding cases: R. (Barclay) v. Justice Secy. (No. 2) (UK Supreme Ct.), 2014 GLR 201

in deciding whether to pass conveyance, role as Judge of Seneschal’s Court is judicial not administrative—to decide as fact whether (a) parties to conveyance before court or validly represented; (b) parties consented to transaction and terms of conveyance; (c) congé of Seigneur given or waived; and (d) treizième paid or waived: Barclay v. Beaumont (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [17]

Seneschal not to allow personal assessment of individual to affect judgment when dealing with issues concerning character of individuals: De Carteret v. Surcouf (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 366

Seneschal’s judicial role under Sark (Reform) Law 2008 breaches European Convention, art. 6—involvement in non-judicial functions in Chief Pleas prejudices objective appearance of independence and impartiality—danger in small community that Seneschal may be involved with same people and issues both in Chief Pleas and in court—litigant unaware whether Seneschal previously involved in issues affecting litigation—situation not rectified by power to recuse himself and appoint Deputy or Lieutenant, or by right of appeal to Guernsey: R. (Barclay) v. Justice Secy. (English C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 297

Seneschal’s powers

Seneschal may not abridge customary law period for notice of appeal without giving reasons or parties opportunity to be heard—abridgement of customary 40-day period to 28 days not manifestly unreasonable but Royal Court may extend on appeal: de Carteret v. Mann (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [18]

Sentencing. See Royal Court—Jurats

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

Submission to jurisdiction. See Court of Alderney—jurisdiction. Royal Court—jurisdiction. Seneschal’s Court—jurisdiction