Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited v Jersey Competent Authority and HM AG [2024] JCA 084 (11 April 2024)

Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited v Jersey Competent Authority and HM AG [2024] JCA 084 (11 April 2024)

The Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the grounds advanced did not raise arguable points of law requiring determination by the Privy Council at this time, except for Ground 5 (Ferrazzini v Italy), which was significant and arguable but not peculiar to Jersey. The Court found that the costs immunity provision was incompatible with Article 6 ECHR due to disproportionate restriction on access to court and inequality of arms, and that the legislative aim was protection of the States' budget, not avoidance of chilling effect.

Citation
[2024] JCA 084
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited; Respondent: Jersey Competent Authority; Intervener: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Compatibility of Costs Immunity With Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Declaration of Incompatibility, Margin of Appreciation, Proportionality, Legislative Aim, Access to Court
Human Rights Constitutional Law Administrative Law Compatibility of Costs Immunity With Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review Declaration of Incompatibility Margin of Appreciation Proportionality +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited

Appellant/applicant

Jersey Competent Authority

Respondent

HM Attorney General

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 2 of the International Cooperation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Law 2018 is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the aim of the 2018 Law is legitimate under Convention jurisprudence
  3. 3 Whether the costs immunity provision is a disproportionate restriction on access to court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the grounds advanced did not raise arguable points of law requiring determination by the Privy Council at this time, except for Ground 5 (Ferrazzini v Italy), which was significant and arguable but not peculiar to Jersey. The Court found that the costs immunity provision was incompatible with Article 6 ECHR due to disproportionate restriction on access to court and inequality of arms, and that the legislative aim was protection of the States' budget, not avoidance of chilling effect.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is refused.