 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Walker, Walker, B and Delarose Trustee Limited -v- Egerton-Vernon, Walker Representatives Limited, Chown and Hawksford Trust Company [2014] JCA 094 (11 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2014/2014_094.html Cite as: [2014] JCA 094, [2014] JCA 94 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, sitting alone. |
|
||
|
Between |
(1) Michaela Walker |
Plaintiffs |
|||
|
|
(2) Ross Walker |
|
|||
|
|
(3) B (a minor by his guardian ad litem, Michaela Walker) |
|
|||
|
|
(4) Delarose Trustee Limited |
|
|||
|
And |
(1) Paul Egerton-Vernon |
Defendants |
|||
|
|
(2) Walker Representatives Limited |
|
|||
|
|
(3) Mark Chown |
|
|||
|
|
(4) Hawksford Trust Company |
|
|||
Application for leave to appeal against decision of the Commissioner dated 24th January, 2014.
Advocate E. C. P. Mackereth for the Plaintiffs.
Advocate P. D. James for the First Defendant.
Adocate B. J. Lincoln for the Second Defendant.
Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the Third Defendant.
Advocate M. L. A. Pallot for the Fourth Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. In this case, Advocate Mackereth, on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Hunt, Commissioner given on 24th January, 2014, whereby he refused the 4th plaintiff (Delarose) leave to re-amend the order of justice so as to allow it to make against the first defendant and the third defendant the claims already made against those defendants by the first, second and third plaintiffs.
2. The Commissioner refused leave to appeal on 20th March, 2014. He accepted that the first ground on which he found against Delarose could be said to raise a question of general principle to be decided for the first time and to be an important question of law upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal might be useful, but he refused leave on the basis that the second ground of his decision was enough of itself to defeat Delarose's argument and this was no more than applying existing principles to the admitted facts of the case.
3. I think that, given that the first ground does raise a point of general principle, it would be preferable for this matter to be considered by the full Court of Appeal. I am therefore referring this application to the full Court under Article 13(4) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961. The hearing of the application for leave to appeal should be treated as the hearing of the appeal in the event of leave being granted, so that the parties should come prepared to argue the case fully.