1998/69 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 69 (2 April 1998)

1998/69 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 69 (2 April 1998)

The Solicitor General's application to intervene was refused because the statements she sought to correct were not relevant or significant to the issues currently before the Court, having been made in the context of an application to call fresh evidence which was refused as irrelevant.

Citation
[1998] UR 69
Parties
First Plaintiff: Mayo Associates SA; Second Plaintiff: Troy Associates, Limited; Third Plaintiff: TTS International, Limited; First Defendant: Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Limited; Second Defendant: Touche Ross, Limited; Interested Party: The Viscount; Applicant for Intervention: Solicitor General (acting Attorney General)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Application for Intervention
Outcome
Application for intervention refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Intervention by Attorney General, Correction of Misleading Statements
Civil Procedure Judicial Recusal Intervention by Attorney General Correction of Misleading Statements

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

Parties

Mayo Associates SA

First Plaintiff

Troy Associates, Limited

Second Plaintiff

TTS International, Limited

Third Plaintiff

Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Limited

First Defendant

Touche Ross, Limited

Second Defendant

The Viscount

Interested Party

Solicitor General (acting Attorney General)

Applicant for Intervention

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Application for Intervention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Solicitor General (acting Attorney General) should be granted leave to intervene to correct alleged misleading statements regarding Home Office intervention in prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Solicitor General's application to intervene was refused because the statements she sought to correct were not relevant or significant to the issues currently before the Court, having been made in the context of an application to call fresh evidence which was refused as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Application for intervention refused