Pitman and Pitman -v- JEP Ltd and 1st Jersey Ltd [2013] JCA 218 (12 November 2013)

Pitman and Pitman -v- JEP Ltd and 1st Jersey Ltd [2013] JCA 218 (12 November 2013)

Applications to call the jurat and the Bailiff as witnesses are refused as the law does not permit examination of judges as to their judicial conduct. The disclosure application is refused for lack of specificity and necessity. The application to adduce new documents is refused except for four documents, on which no order is made due to prematurity.

Citation
[2013] JCA 218
Parties
Applicant: Mrs Shona Pitman; Applicant: Mr Trevor Mark Pitman; First Respondent: Jersey Evening Post Limited; Second Respondent: st Jersey Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Single Judge Determination on Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused in part; no order on certain documents due to prematurity.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Recusal of Judge, Bias, Adducing New Evidence, Disclosure, Defamation
Civil Procedure Defamation Judicial Conduct Extension of Time to Appeal Recusal of Judge Bias Adducing New Evidence Disclosure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Shona Pitman

Applicant

Mr Trevor Mark Pitman

Applicant

Jersey Evening Post Limited

First Respondent

st Jersey Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Single Judge Determination on Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence, call further witnesses, and obtain disclosure in support of an out-of-time appeal against a defamation judgment
  2. 2 Whether alleged bias or conflict of interest of a jurat justifies such orders
  3. 3 Whether documents sought to be adduced are relevant to the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Applications to call the jurat and the Bailiff as witnesses are refused as the law does not permit examination of judges as to their judicial conduct. The disclosure application is refused for lack of specificity and necessity. The application to adduce new documents is refused except for four documents, on which no order is made due to prematurity.

Court Disposition

Applications refused in part; no order on certain documents due to prematurity.

Orders

  • Refusal to call Jurat Le Breton and the Bailiff as witnesses.
  • Refusal of disclosure application.