Bates v Combrinck [2004] JRC 116 (06 July 2004)

Bates v Combrinck [2004] JRC 116 (06 July 2004)

The affidavit, when read with the Order of Justice, established a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried. Procedural defects in the affidavit did not cause prejudice or invalidate the order for service out of the jurisdiction. The proceedings were properly constituted, and the court had jurisdiction over...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] JRC 116
Parties
Plaintiff: David Leslie Bates; Second Defendant: David Risbey; Sixth Defendant: Microstar Limited; Fourth Defendant: Queen Street Nominees Limited; Fifth Defendant: Guardian Trust Company Limited; First Defendant: Mr. Combrinck; Third Defendant: Mr. Khakhria
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Derivative Actions, Unfair Prejudice, Directors' Duties, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Statutory Duty
Company Law Civil Procedure Service Out of Jurisdiction Derivative Actions Unfair Prejudice Directors' Duties Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Statutory Duty

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Leslie Bates

Plaintiff

David Risbey

Second Defendant

Microstar Limited

Sixth Defendant

Queen Street Nominees Limited

Fourth Defendant

Guardian Trust Company Limited

Fifth Defendant

Mr. Combrinck

First Defendant

Mr. Khakhria

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to serve the second defendant (David Risbey) out of the jurisdiction was properly granted under the Service of Process (Jersey) Rules 1994
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support of service out of jurisdiction disclosed a good arguable case and complied with procedural requirements
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were properly constituted given the dissolution and later reinstatement of Microstar Limited and the status of other defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit, when read with the Order of Justice, established a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried. Procedural defects in the affidavit did not cause prejudice or invalidate the order for service out of the jurisdiction. The proceedings were properly constituted, and the court had jurisdiction over the second defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside service of proceedings on the second defendant out of the jurisdiction
  • Declaration that proceedings have been properly served and that the court has jurisdiction over the second defendant