Goldtron Ltd. v Most Invs. Ltd. [2002] JLR 424 (09 August 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] JLR 424
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Injunction (mareva) / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Injunction
More details
- Posture
- Injunction (mareva) / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Injunction
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
An ex parte applicant for a Mareva injunction must make full and frank disclosure of all known potential defences to the order sought. Failure to do so, including relying on ignorance of the importance of undisclosed matters or the fact that information is only discoverable within voluminous exhibits, is not a valid defence and may justify discharge of the injunction even if the order would have been made with full disclosure.
Court disposition
injunction discharged
Orders
- Mareva injunction discharged for misrepresentation and non-disclosure
02
Material facts
Parties
Goldtron Ltd.
PlaintiffMost Investments Ltd.
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Injunction (mareva) / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Injunction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the ex parte applicant made full and frank disclosure of known potential defences to the order sought
- 02
Whether failure to disclose matters not known to be important is a defence for the applicant
- 03
Whether the injunction should be discharged for non-disclosure even if the order would have been made with full disclosure
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff argued that it was unaware of the importance of the undisclosed matters and that disclosure was not required if the information was only discoverable within voluminous exhibits.
- Respondent
- Defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of known potential defences and that the injunction should be discharged for misrepresentation and non-disclosure.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey common law
Ex parte applicants must make full and frank disclosure of all known potential defences to the order sought.
- 02
Jersey common law
It is insufficient for an applicant to claim ignorance of the importance of undisclosed matters or to rely on the information being buried in voluminous exhibits.
- 03
Jersey common law
A Mareva injunction may be discharged for non-disclosure or misrepresentation even if the order would have been made with full disclosure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
An ex parte applicant for a Mareva injunction must make full and frank disclosure of all known potential defences to the order sought. Failure to do so, including relying on ignorance of the importance of undisclosed matters or the fact that information is only discoverable within voluminous exhibits, is not a valid defence and may justify discharge of the injunction even if the order would have been made with full disclosure.
Court disposition
injunction discharged
- Mareva injunction discharged for misrepresentation and non-disclosure
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Goldtron Ltd. v Most Invs. Ltd. [2002] JLR 424 (09 August 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2002/JLR020424.html Cite as: [2002] JLR 424 [ New search ] [ Help ] Goldtron Ltd. v Most Invs. Ltd. 2002 JLR 424 (09 August 2002) Injunctions-Mareva injunction-misrepresentation and non-disclosure-ex parte applicant to make full and frank disclosure of known potential defences to order sought and insufficient that only discoverable within voluminous exhibits-no defence for plaintiff to state that unaware of importance of undisclosed matters-may discharge injunction even if order would have been made with full disclosure The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2002 JLR 424 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2002/JLR020424.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.