Prestigic (Wisley) Nominees Ltd -v- JTC and Others [2012] JRC 114 (08 June 2012)

Prestigic (Wisley) Nominees Ltd -v- JTC and Others [2012] JRC 114 (08 June 2012)

Prestigic's pursuit of the application after the overwhelming majority of shareholders opposed it, and in the absence of evidence of unfairness, constituted an abuse of process and justified an award of indemnity costs from 12 October 2011. JTC's continued involvement as a party was unreasonable and unjustified, warranting indemnity costs. The Company and Green Light were entitled to standard costs up to 12 October 2011 and indemnity costs thereafter.

Citation
[2012] JRC 114
Parties
Representor: Prestigic; First Respondent: JTC; Second Respondent: the Company; Other Respondent: Green Light Property Fund Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Representation Under Article 141(1) of the Companies (jersey) Law 1991 / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs granted in part; costs orders made against Prestigic.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Shareholder Remedies, Majority Rule, Unfair Prejudice, Abuse of Process
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Shareholder Remedies Majority Rule Unfair Prejudice Abuse of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestigic

Representor

JTC

First Respondent

the Company

Second Respondent

Green Light Property Fund Limited

Other Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representation Under Article 141(1) of the Companies (jersey) Law 1991 / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis against Prestigic for its unsuccessful application under Article 141(1) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Prestigic in pursuing the application justified indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether refusal to mediate should affect the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Prestigic's pursuit of the application after the overwhelming majority of shareholders opposed it, and in the absence of evidence of unfairness, constituted an abuse of process and justified an award of indemnity costs from 12 October 2011. JTC's continued involvement as a party was unreasonable and unjustified, warranting indemnity costs. The Company and Green Light were entitled to standard costs up to 12 October 2011 and indemnity costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs granted in part; costs orders made against Prestigic.

Orders

  • Prestigic to pay JTC's costs of and incidental to the application on an indemnity basis.
  • Prestigic to pay the costs of the Company and Green Light of and incidental to the application up to and including 12 October 2011 on the standard basis.