JFSC -v- Alternate Ins. Services and Ors 17-Jul-2006 [2006] JRC 104 (17 July 2006)

JFSC -v- Alternate Ins. Services and Ors 17-Jul-2006 [2006] JRC 104 (17 July 2006)

The JFSC's claim under Article 26(2) should not be struck out at this stage because it is arguable that the dealings between Alternate and the investors may constitute 'transactions' within the meaning of Article 26(2), and the relief sought may be within the Court's powers. The JFSC should be given an opportunity to amend its pleadings to clarify its case before any final decision on the strike out application is made.

Citation
[2006] JRC 104
Parties
Plaintiff: Jersey Financial Services Commission; First Defendant: Alternate Insurance Services Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Douglas Clark; Third Defendant: Mr Robert Le Fustec; Fourth Defendant: Mr John Cronin
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Enforcement / Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim Under Article 26(2) of the Financial Services (jersey) Law 1998
Outcome
Application to strike out adjourned; JFSC given leave to amend pleadings; costs of hearing awarded to Applicants; other costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Powers of Financial Regulator, Misleading Statements, Strike Out Applications, Restitution, Case Management
Financial Regulation Company Law Civil Procedure Powers of Financial Regulator Misleading Statements Strike Out Applications Restitution Case Management

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jersey Financial Services Commission

Plaintiff

Alternate Insurance Services Limited

First Defendant

Mr Douglas Clark

Second Defendant

Mr Robert Le Fustec

Third Defendant

Mr John Cronin

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Enforcement / Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim Under Article 26(2) of the Financial Services (jersey) Law 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the JFSC's claim for relief under Article 26(2) of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998 discloses a reasonable cause of action against the Applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the dealings between Alternate and the investors amount to 'transactions' within Article 26(2).
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought is within the powers conferred by Article 26(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The JFSC's claim under Article 26(2) should not be struck out at this stage because it is arguable that the dealings between Alternate and the investors may constitute 'transactions' within the meaning of Article 26(2), and the relief sought may be within the Court's powers. The JFSC should be given an opportunity to amend its pleadings to clarify its case before any final decision on the strike out application is made.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out adjourned; JFSC given leave to amend pleadings; costs of hearing awarded to Applicants; other costs reserved.

Orders

  • Applicants' summons to strike out adjourned.
  • JFSC to serve amended Order of Justice and Reply by 28 July 2006.