1998/106 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 106 (28 May 1998)

1998/106 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 106 (28 May 1998)

The Bailiff was not required to recuse himself as there was no real danger of bias, either actual or apparent, based on his constitutional roles or public statements. The Bailiff was the appropriate person to hear the recusal application. The Royal Court exceeded its inherent jurisdiction by ordering the plaintiffs to provide investor information for the purpose of communicating Cantrade's settlement offer, as such an order was not necessary for the court to function as a court of justice in resolving the issues between the parties. The plaintiffs' application to introduce fresh evidence failed as the material was not relevant to the test for apparent bias.

Citation
[1998] UR 106
Parties
First Plaintiff: Mayo Associates SA; Second Plaintiff: Troy Associates, Limited; Third Plaintiff: TTS International, Limited; First Defendant: Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C. I.) Limited; Second Defendant: Touche Ross, Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Decisions Regarding Recusal and Inherent Jurisdiction Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Apparent Bias, Inherent Jurisdiction, Fiduciary Duties, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Judicial Conduct Trusts and Fiduciary Law Judicial Recusal Apparent Bias Inherent Jurisdiction Fiduciary Duties Fresh Evidence on Appeal

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayo Associates SA

First Plaintiff

Troy Associates, Limited

Second Plaintiff

TTS International, Limited

Third Plaintiff

Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C. I.) Limited

First Defendant

Touche Ross, Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Decisions Regarding Recusal and Inherent Jurisdiction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bailiff should have recused himself from hearing the substantive matter and the recusal application
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court had inherent jurisdiction to order the plaintiffs to provide investor information for communication of settlement offers
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Bailiff was not required to recuse himself as there was no real danger of bias, either actual or apparent, based on his constitutional roles or public statements. The Bailiff was the appropriate person to hear the recusal application. The Royal Court exceeded its inherent jurisdiction by ordering the plaintiffs to provide investor information for the purpose of communicating Cantrade's settlement offer, as such an order was not necessary for the court to function as a court of justice in resolving the issues between the parties. The plaintiffs' application to introduce fresh evidence failed as the material was not relevant to the test for apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' appeal against the Royal Court's order on Cantrade's Representation is allowed; the order requiring disclosure of investor information is set aside.
  • Plaintiffs' appeals regarding the Bailiff's refusal to recuse himself and his decision to hear the recusal application are dismissed.