1998/32 - Jean v Murfitt [1998] UR 32 (13 February 1998)

1998/32 - Jean v Murfitt [1998] UR 32 (13 February 1998)

The letter from Advocate Perrot did not satisfy the criteria for fresh evidence as it would not have had an important influence on the outcome of the trial or appeal. The Royal Court was correct to lift the stay on enforcement of orders as Mr Murfitt failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not prosecute his appeal with due diligence.

Citation
[1998] UR 32
Parties
Representor/respondent: Louis Emile Jean; First Respondent/appellant: Colin Douglas Murfitt; Second Respondent: Murco Overseas Properties Limited; Third Respondent: The Viscount
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Findings and Lifting Stay on Enforcement of Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Forgery, Setting Aside Judgments, Winding Up of Companies, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Evidence Company Law Fresh Evidence on Appeal Forgery Setting Aside Judgments Winding Up of Companies Stay of Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Emile Jean

Representor/respondent

Colin Douglas Murfitt

First Respondent/appellant

Murco Overseas Properties Limited

Second Respondent

The Viscount

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Findings and Lifting Stay on Enforcement of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence (a letter from Advocate Perrot) justified setting aside the Royal Court and Court of Appeal judgments regarding the alleged forged agreement (séparation des biens)
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court was correct to lift the stay on enforcement of orders relating to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The letter from Advocate Perrot did not satisfy the criteria for fresh evidence as it would not have had an important influence on the outcome of the trial or appeal. The Royal Court was correct to lift the stay on enforcement of orders as Mr Murfitt failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not prosecute his appeal with due diligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside judgments refused
  • No order made in relation to the hearing before the Royal Court save as to costs, which may be subject to further applications