Jersey Judgment

Abela v Ameropa [1993] JLR 386 (30 November 1993)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

No interlocutory relief is available pending the full hearing because the statutory power to grant relief only arises after the court is satisfied that the application is well founded.

Court disposition

interlocutory relief refused

02

Material facts

Parties

Abela

Applicant

Ameropa

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Company Law Application / Interlocutory

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether interlocutory relief can be granted pending a full hearing of an application under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, art. 141 for unfair prejudice

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought interlocutory relief pending the full hearing of an unfair prejudice application under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, art. 141.
Respondent
Respondent opposed interlocutory relief, arguing that relief under art. 143(2) only arises if the application is proved to be well founded.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, arts. 141, 143

    By art. 143(1), the application must be 'well founded'—i.e., it must be proved that the company's affairs have been conducted in an unfairly prejudicial manner—before the power arises to grant relief under art. 143(2).

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

No interlocutory relief is available pending the full hearing because the statutory power to grant relief only arises after the court is satisfied that the application is well founded.

Court disposition

interlocutory relief refused

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[1993] JLR 386

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Abela v Ameropa [1993] JLR 386 (30 November 1993) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1993/JLR930386.html Cite as: [1993] JLR 386 [ New search ] [ Help ] Abela v Ameropa 1993 JLR 386 (30 November 1993) Companies - minority shareholders - unfair prejudice - interlocutory relief-no interlocutory relief pending full hearing of application under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, art. 141-by art. 143(1), application to be "well founded," i.e. to be proved that company's affairs conducted in unfairly prejudicial manner before power arises to grant relief under art. 143(2) The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1993 JLR 386 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1993/JLR930386.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, art. 141

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, art. 143

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.