1998/192 - Eves v Viscount [1998] UR 192 (24 September 1998)

1998/192 - Eves v Viscount [1998] UR 192 (24 September 1998)

The Royal Court was entitled to strike out the Representation as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Viscount acted within his discretion and was under no duty to assign the company or join litigation. The appellant's claims were groundless and further litigation would be purposeless.

Citation
[1998] UR 192
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: David Eves; Defendant/respondent: The Viscount
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Striking Out Representation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Company or Causes of Action, Liquidator's Discretion, Legal Aid, Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Natural Justice
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Assignment of Company or Causes of Action Liquidator's Discretion Legal Aid Abuse of Process Malicious Prosecution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Eves

Plaintiff/appellant

The Viscount

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Striking Out Representation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Royal Court erred in striking out the Representation seeking assignment of Blue Horizon Holidays Ltd or its causes of action to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Viscount was obliged to assign the company or join in litigation against St. Brelades Bay Hotel Ltd
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to legal aid to pursue litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Royal Court was entitled to strike out the Representation as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Viscount acted within his discretion and was under no duty to assign the company or join litigation. The appellant's claims were groundless and further litigation would be purposeless.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Royal Court order striking out Representation affirmed