Brakspear v Nedbank [2018] JRC 037 (14 February 2018)

The court declined to adjourn the Bankers' Book Law application because the applicants remain parties to the proceedings and their application should be determined on its merits; it cannot be said with certainty that information disclosed would not be relevant to the strike out application.

Citation: [2018] JRC 037
Parties: First Respondent: Nedbank Private Wealth Limited, Jersey Branch; Second Respondent: Nedbank Trust (Jersey) Limited; Applicant: First applicant; Applicant: Second applicant
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 14 February 2018
Procedural Posture: Case Management Application / Interlocutory
Outcome: Application to adjourn refused
Legal Topics: Adjournment, Bankers' Book Evidence, Strike Out Application, Disclosure, Res Judicata

Trust Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Adjournment Bankers' Book Evidence Strike Out Application Disclosure Res Judicata

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Nedbank Private Wealth Limited, Jersey Branch

First Respondent

Nedbank Trust (Jersey) Limited

Second Respondent

First applicant

Applicant

Second applicant

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Case Management Application / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Bankers' Book Evidence (Jersey) Law 1986 application should be adjourned pending determination of a strike out application
2 Whether information obtained under the Bankers' Book Law could be relevant to the strike out application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to adjourn refused

Orders

The first respondent's summons to adjourn is declined.
Costs of the summons to be determined by the court dealing with the strike out application.