1998/242 - The State of Qatar v Al-Thani [1998] UR 242 (1 December 1998)
The court distinguished the present case from Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard and indicated willingness to consider varying the order to require broader disclosure of asset value and location.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] UR 242
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Krohn GmbH; Defendant: Varna Shipyard
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 01 December 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Order to be considered for variation; court prepared to hear further argument on extent of variation.
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Variation of Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Krohn GmbH
Plaintiff
Varna Shipyard
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether disclosure can be ordered regarding assets outside the jurisdiction
- 2 Whether the order should be varied to require disclosure of current value and location of assets
Ratio Decidendi
The court distinguished the present case from Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard and indicated willingness to consider varying the order to require broader disclosure of asset value and location.
Court Disposition
Order to be considered for variation; court prepared to hear further argument on extent of variation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
judgment THE COMMISSIONER: . In Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard , (24 th July, 1997) Jersey Unreported, the application was only for disclosure within the jurisdiction; nonetheless, we certainly follow the learned Bailiff’s reasoning in that Judgment when he says: “… but can it be said that the defendant is enjoined to do or to refrain from doing something within the jurisdiction? The affidavit could, and no doubt would, be given outside the jurisdiction.” . Nevertheless, the proposal of the Plaintiff here is slightly wider, asking for disclosure of the current value of the assets and their current location, including the jurisdiction, as applicable, in which they are held or administered. For myself, whilst I see your argument, Mr. Journeaux, I think I can distinguish between that case and the present one and am now prepared to hear argument as to the extent to which the Order should be varied. Authorities Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard (24 th July, 1997) Jersey Unreported. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII