Brazil v Durant [2013] JCA 107 (05 June 2013)

Brazil v Durant [2013] JCA 107 (05 June 2013)

Leave to appeal was refused as the issue concerned evidential matters not of general public importance. Indemnity costs were refused as the delay was minimal and not unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2013] JCA 107
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: The Federal Republic of Brazil; Respondent/plaintiff: The Municipality of Sao Paulo; Applicant/defendant: Durant International Corporation; Applicant/defendant: Kildare Finance Limited; Party: Deutsche Bank International Limited; Party: Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited; Party: Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited; Party: Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Costs / Post Judgment Applications
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs, Tracing, Evidence
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Tracing Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Brazil

Respondent/plaintiff

The Municipality of Sao Paulo

Respondent/plaintiff

Durant International Corporation

Applicant/defendant

Kildare Finance Limited

Applicant/defendant

Deutsche Bank International Limited

Party

Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited

Party

Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited

Party

Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited

Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Costs / Post Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Privy Council should be granted on the issue of backwards tracing
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded due to alleged unreasonable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused as the issue concerned evidential matters not of general public importance. Indemnity costs were refused as the delay was minimal and not unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • leave to appeal to Privy Council refused
  • application for indemnity costs refused