Tomes v Coke Wallis [2001] JRC 25 (25 January 2001)

Tomes v Coke Wallis [2001] JRC 25 (25 January 2001)

The defendants were contractually obliged to procure Cototrust's resignation as trustee for CPT clients in favour of Equinox, and their imposition of additional conditions was unreasonable and not supported by the agreement. The plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of assurance of success at trial, justifying the grant of interim mandatory injunctions. The defendants' breach of the ex parte injunction regarding computer access constituted contempt of court, though the breach was minor and caused no prejudice. Costs for the hearing arising from the contempt were awarded on an indemnity basis due to the defendants' conduct.

Citation
[2001] JRC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Tomes; First Defendant: Mr Coke-Wallis; Second Defendant: Cototrust (Jersey) Limited; Third Defendant: Mrs Coke-Wallis
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunctions
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunctions granted in favour of the plaintiff (with minor amendment); application for further general injunction declined; defendants reprimanded for contempt; costs of the contempt hearing awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Injunctions, Trustee Retirement and Appointment, Breach of Agreement, Contempt of Court, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Mandatory Injunctions Trustee Retirement and Appointment Breach of Agreement Contempt of Court Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Tomes

Plaintiff

Mr Coke-Wallis

First Defendant

Cototrust (Jersey) Limited

Second Defendant

Mrs Coke-Wallis

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were obliged to execute deeds of retirement and appointment of trustees as per the agreement of 5th August, 2000
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory interlocutory injunctions compelling execution of such deeds and restraining interference
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were in contempt of court for breach of an ex parte injunction regarding computer access

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were contractually obliged to procure Cototrust's resignation as trustee for CPT clients in favour of Equinox, and their imposition of additional conditions was unreasonable and not supported by the agreement. The plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of assurance of success at trial, justifying the grant of interim mandatory injunctions. The defendants' breach of the ex parte injunction regarding computer access constituted contempt of court, though the breach was minor and caused no prejudice. Costs for the hearing arising from the contempt were awarded on an indemnity basis due to the defendants' conduct.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunctions granted in favour of the plaintiff (with minor amendment); application for further general injunction declined; defendants reprimanded for contempt; costs of the contempt hearing awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to execute deeds of retirement and appointment of trustees in the form of the deed dated 5th August, 2000, and return them to the plaintiff.
  • Second Defendant to execute similar deeds for other trusts upon provision of relevant documents and return them to the plaintiff.