Cochrane v Harbour Fund II LLP and the Viscount [2020] JCA 168 (14 August 2020)

Cochrane v Harbour Fund II LLP and the Viscount [2020] JCA 168 (14 August 2020)

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of nearly three years was excessive and not justified by the reasons advanced. The applicant failed to pursue available avenues for funding legal advice and representation. The merits of the proposed appeal were weak: Harbour had a liquidated claim against ORB and Dr Cochrane, and there was ample evidence that Dr Cochrane had realisable assets. The new evidence sought to be introduced could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and would not have affected the outcome.

Citation
[2020] JCA 168
Parties
Applicant: Dr Gail Alison Cochrane; First Respondent: Harbour Fund II LLP; Second Respondent: The Viscount
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Declaration of Désastre, Liquidated Claim, Realisable Assets, Litigation Funding, Guarantee Liability
Insolvency Civil Procedure Extension of Time to Appeal Declaration of Désastre Liquidated Claim Realisable Assets Litigation Funding Guarantee Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Gail Alison Cochrane

Applicant

Harbour Fund II LLP

First Respondent

The Viscount

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the declaration of désastre
  2. 2 Whether Harbour Fund II LLP had a liquidated claim against Dr Cochrane and ORB
  3. 3 Whether Dr Cochrane had realisable assets at the time of the declaration

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of nearly three years was excessive and not justified by the reasons advanced. The applicant failed to pursue available avenues for funding legal advice and representation. The merits of the proposed appeal were weak: Harbour had a liquidated claim against ORB and Dr Cochrane, and there was ample evidence that Dr Cochrane had realisable assets. The new evidence sought to be introduced could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and would not have affected the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused