Jersey Judgment

Parujan v Atlantic Western Trustees [2002] JRC 213A (04 November 2002)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court accepted the parties' agreement on directions for evidence, cross-examination, and submissions, emphasizing the need for efficiency and adherence to time limits to resolve the issues within two days.

Court disposition

Directions given for conduct of hearing and evidence.

Orders

  • Affidavits to be filed by specified dates.
  • All evidence-in-chief to be by affidavit except Mr Ellis, who will confirm his report on oath.
  • All witnesses giving affidavit evidence must attend for cross-examination.
  • Strict time limits set for cross-examination and submissions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Trustee

Trustee Counsel: Advocate Le Quesne

Representor

Representor Counsel: Advocate Taylor

Amounts and remedies

  • Mr Ellis Cross Examination by Representor: minutes 10
  • Mr Ellis Cross Examination by Trustee: minutes 140
  • Mr Karpadia Cross Examination by Trustee: minutes 90
  • Mr Karpadia Re Examination by Representor: minutes 15
  • Mr Evered Cross Examination: minutes 40
  • Mr Evered Re Examination: minutes 10
  • Mr Medlock Cross Examination: minutes 40
  • Mr Medlock Re Examination: minutes 10
  • Mrs Evered Cross Examination: minutes 20
  • Mrs Evered Re Examination: minutes 10
  • Representor Closing Submissions: minutes 90
  • Trustee Reply Submissions: minutes 105
  • Representor Response Submissions: minutes 15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Article 47 Proceedings / Pre Trial Directions

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Advocate Le Quesne for the Trustee submitted that unpleaded issues should not be raised and requested clear directions on time limits and evidence procedure.
Respondent
Advocate Taylor for the Representor did not object to the late filing and agreed to the proposed directions and time limits.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 47

    The Court has wide discretion in Article 47 proceedings to resolve issues as it sees fit.

  2. 02

    Court's procedural discretion

    Unpleaded issues should not be raised unless the Court rules otherwise.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court accepted the parties' agreement on directions for evidence, cross-examination, and submissions, emphasizing the need for efficiency and adherence to time limits to resolve the issues within two days.

Obiter and limits

  • If there is doubt as to whether a matter raised in an affidavit is relevant, counsel may seek a ruling before cross-examination.

Court disposition

Directions given for conduct of hearing and evidence.

  • Affidavits to be filed by specified dates.
  • All evidence-in-chief to be by affidavit except Mr Ellis, who will confirm his report on oath.
  • All witnesses giving affidavit evidence must attend for cross-examination.
  • Strict time limits set for cross-examination and submissions.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2002] JRC 213A

judgment the bailiff: 1. On the 19 th August, 2002, the Court gave directions, in relation to the filing of evidence, with a view to bringing this representation on for hearing. Under paragraph 6(4) of those directions, an affidavit was to be filed by the Trustee, in relation to Mr. Ellis' report or any other matter relevant to the determination of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the representation as it saw fit, on or before 30 th September, 2002.

2. In fact the two affidavits were not filed until the 31 st October, 2002. Advocate Le Quesne has apologised for this failure to comply with the Court's order, and, without objection from Advocate Taylor, I accept that a misunderstanding took place. It is now agreed, and I direct, that the affidavit or affidavits, referred to in paragraph 6(5) of the earlier directions, will be filed on or before the 18 th November. The affidavits in reply referred to in paragraph 6(6) of the earlier directions, will be filed by close of business on nd November.

3. Counsel for both parties are agreed on further directions as follows: (i) All evidence-in-chief will be given by affidavit, except that Mr Ellis will confirm the contents of his report on oath before being cross-examined. No witnesses, other than the deponents of affidavits, and save for Mr Ellis, will be heard. (ii) All witnesses who are to give evidence-in-chief by affidavit will attend the trial for cross-examination. No affidavits will be admitted unless the deponent attends court for cross-examination. (iii) Mr Ellis will be cross-examined by counsel for the Representor and subsequently by counsel for the Trustee. (iv) Not later than the 26 th November, 2002, counsel for the Trustee will supply to counsel for the Representor copies of the affidavits and authorities upon which it will rely. Not later than 28 th November, 2002, the Representor will file with the Court and with the Trustee bundles containing the affidavits, documentary material and authorities to be placed before the Court. (v) On the same day, 28 th November, counsel for the Representor will file with the Court, and with the Trustee, a copy of his skeleton argument. The Trustee's skeleton argument will be filed with the Court and with the Representor by 3 rd December. Any supplemental skeleton argument to be filed on behalf of the Representor will be filed with the Court and with the Trustee by 6 th December. Counsel for the Representor will supply Mr Ellis with the bundle of affidavits at the same time as these documents are filed with the Court.

4. As to the question of time limits I have listened carefully to the submissions of Advocate Le Quesne for the Trustee. These are Article 47 proceedings where the Court has a wide discretion as to how to resolve issues before the Court. In general I accept Advocate Le Quesne's submission that unpleaded issues should not be raised. If there is doubt as to whether a matter raised in an affidavit is relevant to issues before the Court it is open to counsel to seek a ruling before the matter is subjected to cross-examination.

5. It remains the view of the Court, however, that the issues raised by the representation are capable of being resolved in two days, and that it is in the interests of justice that they should be. To that end I give the following directions on time limits: (i) Mr Ellis will be cross-examined by counsel for the Representor for not more than 10 minutes. He will then be subject to cross-examination by counsel for the Trustee for not more than 140 minutes, that is 2 hours and 20 minutes. (ii) Mr Karpadia who is the only witness to be called for the Representor will be subject to cross-examination by counsel for the Trustee for not more than 90 minutes. Re-examination by counsel for the Representor will last not more than 15 minutes. (iii) Mr Evered and Mr Medlock who are to be witnesses for the Trustee will each be subject to cross-examination for 40 minutes and to re-examination for not more than 10 minutes. I envisage that one of those witnesses will give evidence on the afternoon of Thursday 12 th December, and that the other will give evidence on the morning of Friday 13 th December. If Mrs Evered is called as a witness she will be subject to cross-examination for not more than 20 minutes, and to re-examination for not more than 10 minutes. (iv) Counsel for the Representor will then have a maximum of 1hour 30 minutes to make his closing submissions, both as to the law and as to the facts. Counsel for the Trustee will have 1 hour and 45 minutes to reply. Counsel for the Representor will then have 15 minutes to respond.

6. Those are my directions. No Authorities. Page Last Updated: 22 Sep 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Article 47

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.