1998/21 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 21 (3 February 1998)

1998/21 - Mayo Associates v Cantrade Private Bank [1998] UR 21 (3 February 1998)

Orders for specific discovery were granted only where a prima facie case was established that relevant documents existed and disclosure was necessary for fair disposal of the action. Where affidavits properly denied possession or relevance, further discovery was refused. The court followed English practice that such affidavits cannot be challenged if in proper form.

Citation
[1998] UR 21
Parties
Plaintiff: First Plaintiff (Trustee); Plaintiff: Second Plaintiff (Investment Programme Operator); Plaintiff: Third Plaintiff (Nominee Company); Defendant: First Defendant (Bank); Third Party: Third Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of First Plaintiff); Third Party: Fourth Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of Second Plaintiff); Third Party: Fifth Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of Second Plaintiff)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Trustee Duties, Bank Liability, Investment Losses, Specific Discovery, Affidavit of Discovery
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Banking Law Discovery of Documents Trustee Duties Bank Liability Investment Losses Specific Discovery +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Plaintiff (Trustee)

Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff (Investment Programme Operator)

Plaintiff

Third Plaintiff (Nominee Company)

Plaintiff

First Defendant (Bank)

Defendant

Third Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of First Plaintiff)

Third Party

Fourth Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of Second Plaintiff)

Third Party

Fifth Third Party (Director/Beneficial Owner of Second Plaintiff)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs and third parties have complied with discovery obligations
  2. 2 Whether further specific discovery should be ordered for certain categories of documents
  3. 3 Whether affidavits denying existence of documents can be challenged

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for specific discovery were granted only where a prima facie case was established that relevant documents existed and disclosure was necessary for fair disposal of the action. Where affidavits properly denied possession or relevance, further discovery was refused. The court followed English practice that such affidavits cannot be challenged if in proper form.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Specific discovery ordered for requests 1 and 2 for the relevant period, with investor identities protected.
  • Specific discovery ordered for requests 4 and 6, limited to the 120 and 230 documents identified.