MacFirbhisigh and Ching -v- CI Trustees and Others [2017] JRC 140A (04 September 2017)

MacFirbhisigh and Ching -v- CI Trustees and Others [2017] JRC 140A (04 September 2017)

Sinels failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on appeal or that the case raised an important question of law or general principle warranting appellate review. The judge found adequate reasons were given, the burden of proof was correctly applied, and the issues were too fact-specific for general importance.

Citation
[2017] JRC 140A
Parties
First Costs Defendants: Sinels; Plaintiffs: Costs Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Post Judgment, Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Leave to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Burden of Proof, Causation
Civil Procedure Costs Wasted Costs Leave to Appeal Summary Judgment Burden of Proof Causation

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

Sinels

First Costs Defendants

Costs Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Post Judgment, Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sinels should be granted leave to appeal against the refusal to strike out or grant reverse summary judgment on certain paragraphs of the wasted costs application grounds.
  2. 2 Whether the test for granting leave to appeal is satisfied under Jersey law as set out in Tygres v. Jersey Home Loans.

Ratio Decidendi

Sinels failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on appeal or that the case raised an important question of law or general principle warranting appellate review. The judge found adequate reasons were given, the burden of proof was correctly applied, and the issues were too fact-specific for general importance.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused