Tomes v CokeWallis and ors [2002] JRC 89 (29 April 2002)

Tomes v CokeWallis and ors [2002] JRC 89 (29 April 2002)

The actions did not share sufficient commonality of law or fact, nor did they arise from the same transaction, to justify consolidation or joint trial. Mr Rombaut's action was resolved except for costs and was not connected to the other two actions. The application to join Cototrust as a third party failed as it did not meet the requirements of Rule 6/10, and the counterclaim was inadequately pleaded. Withdrawn applications cannot be appealed. The appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2002] JRC 89
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Eric Rombaut; Defendant/plaintiff: Mr Clive Tomes; Defendant/appellant: Mr Piers Coke-Wallis; Defendant: Mr Anthony Quinn; Defendant/appellant: Mrs Natalie Coke-Wallis; Defendant/appellant: Coke-Wallis Jones de Polignac Trustees (Jersey) Limited (Cototrust); Defendant (counterclaim): Equinox Trustees Limited; Defendant (counterclaim): Mrs Rombaut
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Procedural Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Actions, Joinder of Parties, Costs, Counterclaims, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Company Law Trusts Consolidation of Actions Joinder of Parties Costs Counterclaims Injunctions

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

Parties

Mr Eric Rombaut

Plaintiff

Mr Clive Tomes

Defendant/plaintiff

Mr Piers Coke-Wallis

Defendant/appellant

Mr Anthony Quinn

Defendant

Mrs Natalie Coke-Wallis

Defendant/appellant

Coke-Wallis Jones de Polignac Trustees (Jersey) Limited (Cototrust)

Defendant/appellant

Equinox Trustees Limited

Defendant (counterclaim)

Mrs Rombaut

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether three related actions should be consolidated or tried together
  2. 2 Whether Cototrust should be joined as a third party in Mr Rombaut's action
  3. 3 Whether withdrawn applications can be appealed

Ratio Decidendi

The actions did not share sufficient commonality of law or fact, nor did they arise from the same transaction, to justify consolidation or joint trial. Mr Rombaut's action was resolved except for costs and was not connected to the other two actions. The application to join Cototrust as a third party failed as it did not meet the requirements of Rule 6/10, and the counterclaim was inadequately pleaded. Withdrawn applications cannot be appealed. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal to consolidate actions dismissed
  • Appeal against refusal to join Cototrust as third party dismissed