CMC v Forster and Ors 09-Oct-2019 [2019] JRC 202 (09 October 2019)

CMC v Forster and Ors 09-Oct-2019 [2019] JRC 202 (09 October 2019)

There was no material change in circumstances since the Royal Court Judgment to justify the Master's renewed order for limited discovery by 10% dip sampling. The First Defendant's affidavit, heavily relied upon by the Master, was not sufficiently reliable due to its preparation context, lack of direct knowledge, and possible conflict of interest. The existence of relevant documents (such as the Ludin memo) found in the warehouses further undermined the sufficiency of the dip sampling method. Accordingly, the Master's order was overturned and the standard position on discovery restored, subject to the possibility of future applications for reasonable limitation.

Citation
[2019] JRC 202
Parties
Plaintiffs: CMC Holdings Limited and Anor; Second Defendant: RBC Trust Company (International) Limited; Third Defendant: The Regent Trust Company Limited; First Defendant: Foster (First Defendant)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order on Discovery
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's order overturned
Legal Topics
Discovery and Disclosure, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Discovery and Disclosure Breach of Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Vicarious Liability

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CMC Holdings Limited and Anor

Plaintiffs

RBC Trust Company (International) Limited

Second Defendant

The Regent Trust Company Limited

Third Defendant

Foster (First Defendant)

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order on Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 10% dip sampling method for discovery is sufficient in the circumstances of the case
  2. 2 Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying a limitation on discovery since the previous Royal Court Judgment
  3. 3 Reliability and weight to be given to the First Defendant's affidavit evidence in support of limiting discovery

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material change in circumstances since the Royal Court Judgment to justify the Master's renewed order for limited discovery by 10% dip sampling. The First Defendant's affidavit, heavily relied upon by the Master, was not sufficiently reliable due to its preparation context, lack of direct knowledge, and possible conflict of interest. The existence of relevant documents (such as the Ludin memo) found in the warehouses further undermined the sufficiency of the dip sampling method. Accordingly, the Master's order was overturned and the standard position on discovery restored, subject to the possibility of future applications for reasonable limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's order overturned

Orders

  • Master's order for limited discovery set aside
  • Costs order of the Master overturned; costs in the cause