Cohen and Kerr and Anor v Arbitrage Research and Trading Ltd SA and Ors 14 Apr 2021 [2021] JRC 113 (14 April 2021)

Cohen and Kerr and Anor v Arbitrage Research and Trading Ltd SA and Ors 14 Apr 2021 [2021] JRC 113 (14 April 2021)

The fourth defendant's pleadings regarding service of the first and second defendants were not consequential amendments, he lacked standing to challenge service, and service issues were irrelevant to the fraud claim against him. Such pleadings were struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] JRC 113
Parties
First Plaintiff (as Joint Administrators of the Estate of the Late James Donald Hanson): Malcolm Cohen and Edward Terrence Kerr; Second Plaintiff: Creditforce Limited; First Defendant: Arbitrage Research Foundation; Second Defendant: Joyce Bonney; Third Defendant: William Stephen O'Leary; Fourth Defendant: Barry Shelton
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Striking Out Pleadings
Outcome
Relevant paragraphs in the fourth defendant's amended answer and consequential pleadings in the plaintiffs' reply struck out; indemnity costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Service of Process, Fraud, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Striking Out Pleadings Service of Process Fraud Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Malcolm Cohen and Edward Terrence Kerr

First Plaintiff (as Joint Administrators of the Estate of the Late James Donald Hanson)

Creditforce Limited

Second Plaintiff

Arbitrage Research Foundation

First Defendant

Joyce Bonney

Second Defendant

William Stephen O'Leary

Third Defendant

Barry Shelton

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Striking Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth defendant can challenge validity of service on first and second defendants
  2. 2 Whether pleadings regarding service are consequential amendments
  3. 3 Whether service issues are relevant to fraud claims against the fourth defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth defendant's pleadings regarding service of the first and second defendants were not consequential amendments, he lacked standing to challenge service, and service issues were irrelevant to the fraud claim against him. Such pleadings were struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Relevant paragraphs in the fourth defendant's amended answer and consequential pleadings in the plaintiffs' reply struck out; indemnity costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Striking out of paragraphs in fourth defendant's amended answer regarding service
  • Striking out of consequential paragraphs in plaintiffs' reply