MacFirbhisigh and ching -v- CI Trustees and Others [2017] JRC 141A (06 September 2017)

MacFirbhisigh and ching -v- CI Trustees and Others [2017] JRC 141A (06 September 2017)

Wasted costs applications are matters of substance, not procedure, as they require findings on the conduct of advocates. The Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 does not preclude the Commissioner from sitting with Jurats for such applications. Given the serious factual disputes and reputational implications, the appropriate course is for the substantive hearing to be before the Commissioner and two Jurats, with preference for those who sat in the original trial.

Citation
[2017] JRC 141A
Parties
Second Costs Defendants: Carey Olsen; First Costs Defendants: First Costs Defendants; Costs Plaintiffs: Costs Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Wasted Costs Application / Preliminary Determination on Court Composition for Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Court Composition, Jurisdiction, Role of Jurats
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Court Composition Jurisdiction Role of Jurats

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carey Olsen

Second Costs Defendants

First Costs Defendants

First Costs Defendants

Costs Plaintiffs

Costs Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Wasted Costs Application / Preliminary Determination on Court Composition for Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wasted costs application is a matter of procedure or substance under the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948
  2. 2 Whether the Bailiff must sit alone or with Jurats for wasted costs applications

Ratio Decidendi

Wasted costs applications are matters of substance, not procedure, as they require findings on the conduct of advocates. The Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 does not preclude the Commissioner from sitting with Jurats for such applications. Given the serious factual disputes and reputational implications, the appropriate course is for the substantive hearing to be before the Commissioner and two Jurats, with preference for those who sat in the original trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The substantive hearing of the Costs Plaintiffs' wasted costs application shall take place before the Commissioner and two Jurats.
  • Jurat Grime, if available, shall sit as one of the Jurats; Jurat Marrett-Crosby, having retired, shall be replaced by another serving Jurat.