MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- C I Trustees and Others [2015] JRC 014 (22 January 2015)

MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- C I Trustees and Others [2015] JRC 014 (22 January 2015)

It is not possible on the pleadings and available material to conclude that the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants are clearly prescribed, as there is an arguable case that empêchement de fait may have suspended the running of time. The issue of prescription is fact-sensitive and should be determined at trial, not summarily. The application to strike out is refused, as is the application to determine prescription as a preliminary issue.

Citation
[2015] JRC 014
Parties
Plaintiff: MacFirbhisigh (Ching); Defendant: CI Trustees and Executors Ltd; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: Third Defendant; Defendant: Fourth Defendant (Mr Manning)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims and for Preliminary Issue on Prescription
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Prescription, Empêchement De Droit, Empêchement De Fait, Dishonest Assistance, Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Strike Out Applications, Preliminary Issues
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Tort Limitation of Actions Prescription Empêchement De Droit Empêchement De Fait Dishonest Assistance +4 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MacFirbhisigh (Ching)

Plaintiff

CI Trustees and Executors Ltd

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Third Defendant

Defendant

Fourth Defendant (Mr Manning)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims and for Preliminary Issue on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants are prescribed (time-barred) under the applicable limitation period
  2. 2 Whether issues of prescription should be determined as a preliminary issue
  3. 3 Whether empêchement de droit or empêchement de fait suspends the running of time for limitation purposes

Ratio Decidendi

It is not possible on the pleadings and available material to conclude that the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants are clearly prescribed, as there is an arguable case that empêchement de fait may have suspended the running of time. The issue of prescription is fact-sensitive and should be determined at trial, not summarily. The application to strike out is refused, as is the application to determine prescription as a preliminary issue.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to strike out the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants on the basis of prescription
  • Refusal to order that issues of prescription be determined as a preliminary issue