Crociani -v- Crociani [2016] JRC 220B (25 November 2016)

Crociani -v- Crociani [2016] JRC 220B (25 November 2016)

The Royal Court has jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions in support of a contingent indemnity claim under a trust instrument where there is a good arguable case in the main action, a good arguable case for indemnity, and a real risk of dissipation of assets. The Third Defendant satisfied these criteria. Delay was justified by procedural developments and did not bar relief. There was no material non-disclosure warranting discharge of the injunctions.

Citation
[2016] JRC 220B
Parties
Third Defendant: BNP Jersey; First Defendant: Mme Crociani; Plaintiff: First Plaintiff; Plaintiff: Second Plaintiff; Plaintiff: Third Plaintiff; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Seventh Defendant: Seventh Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Supplemental Order of Justice (ancillary to Main Action 2013/004) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Interim Injunctions and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Application to discharge injunctions and disclosure orders dismissed; interim injunctions and disclosure orders maintained.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders), Third Party Claims, Indemnity Under Trust Instruments, Jurisdiction of Royal Court, Quia Timet Relief, Full and Frank Disclosure, Delay and Laches
Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders) Third Party Claims Indemnity Under Trust Instruments Jurisdiction of Royal Court Quia Timet Relief Full and Frank Disclosure +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Jersey

Third Defendant

Mme Crociani

First Defendant

First Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Third Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Supplemental Order of Justice (ancillary to Main Action 2013/004) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Interim Injunctions and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Royal Court has jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions in support of a contingent indemnity claim under a trust instrument
  2. 2 Whether the criteria for granting a freezing injunction or quia timet relief are satisfied in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether delay or laches precludes the grant of equitable relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Royal Court has jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions in support of a contingent indemnity claim under a trust instrument where there is a good arguable case in the main action, a good arguable case for indemnity, and a real risk of dissipation of assets. The Third Defendant satisfied these criteria. Delay was justified by procedural developments and did not bar relief. There was no material non-disclosure warranting discharge of the injunctions.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge injunctions and disclosure orders dismissed; interim injunctions and disclosure orders maintained.

Orders

  • Leave granted to Third Defendant to amend paragraph 114 of its Answer and Third Party Claim, with costs of amendment to be paid by Third Defendant.
  • Interim freezing injunctions and disclosure orders against First Defendant to remain in force pending trial.