Haddad v GB Trustees Limited and Anor [2018] JRC 227 (06 December 2018)

Haddad v GB Trustees Limited and Anor [2018] JRC 227 (06 December 2018)

The first defendant failed to comply with discovery obligations by providing inconsistent, duplicative, and inadequately explained lists, delaying searches, and breaching practice directions. The plaintiff is entitled to a further and better affidavit of discovery and to recover 80% of costs of the application and 50% of costs of reviewing disclosed documents on an indemnity basis, with the balance as costs in the cause.

Citation
[2018] JRC 227
Parties
Plaintiff: Antony A. G. Haddad; First Defendant: GB Trustees Limited; Second Defendant: Second Defendant (unnamed, elderly)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Trust Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Discovery and Costs
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Discovery Obligations, Indemnity Costs, Pleadings Clarity, Trustee Duties
Trust Law Civil Procedure Discovery Obligations Indemnity Costs Pleadings Clarity Trustee Duties

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony A. G. Haddad

Plaintiff

GB Trustees Limited

First Defendant

Second Defendant (unnamed, elderly)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trust Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Discovery and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant complied with discovery obligations under Practice Directions RC17/07 and RC17/08
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's pleadings adequately addressed the plaintiff's claim to be intended beneficiary
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs for the discovery application

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant failed to comply with discovery obligations by providing inconsistent, duplicative, and inadequately explained lists, delaying searches, and breaching practice directions. The plaintiff is entitled to a further and better affidavit of discovery and to recover 80% of costs of the application and 50% of costs of reviewing disclosed documents on an indemnity basis, with the balance as costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • First defendant to file a further and better affidavit of discovery in compliance with Practice Directions RC17/07 and RC17/08
  • First defendant to pay 80% of plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, including correspondence since the second list, on an indemnity basis