1999/44 - Mayo and Ors v Anagram and Ors [1999] UR 44 (3 March 1999)

1999/44 - Mayo and Ors v Anagram and Ors [1999] UR 44 (3 March 1999)

The court adjourned both the plaintiffs' application for a penal order and Dr Young's application for a stay to allow time for legal aid administration to address Dr Young's lack of representation, and held that only documents in the possession or control of the defendants are subject to discovery; documents in the Crown's possession are not discoverable in this action.

Citation
[1999] UR 44
Parties
Defendant: Dr Young; Defendant: Mrs Young; Defendant: Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd; Defendant: Bank; Defendant: Touche Ross; Defendant: Mr Williams; Intervener: Attorney General; Plaintiffs' Advocate: Mr Sinel; Defendant's Advocate: Mr Journeaux
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Discovery, Stay, and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Applications adjourned; no order for access to Crown's documents; amendments to Orders of Justice deferred.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Legal Aid, Stay of Proceedings, Amendment of Pleadings, Implied Undertaking, Possession and Control of Documents
Civil Procedure Discovery Legal Aid Stay of Proceedings Amendment of Pleadings Implied Undertaking Possession and Control of Documents

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Young

Defendant

Mrs Young

Defendant

Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd

Defendant

Bank

Defendant

Touche Ross

Defendant

Mr Williams

Defendant

Attorney General

Intervener

Mr Sinel

Plaintiffs' Advocate

Mr Journeaux

Defendant's Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Discovery, Stay, and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether penal order should be made against defendants for non-compliance with discovery orders
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed until legal representation is available to Dr Young
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to access documents in the possession of the Crown

Ratio Decidendi

The court adjourned both the plaintiffs' application for a penal order and Dr Young's application for a stay to allow time for legal aid administration to address Dr Young's lack of representation, and held that only documents in the possession or control of the defendants are subject to discovery; documents in the Crown's possession are not discoverable in this action.

Court Disposition

Applications adjourned; no order for access to Crown's documents; amendments to Orders of Justice deferred.

Orders

  • Adjournment of plaintiffs' application for penal order against defendants.
  • Adjournment of Dr Young's application for stay of proceedings.