Clarke -v- Callaghan [2011] JRC 158 (10 August 2011)

Clarke -v- Callaghan [2011] JRC 158 (10 August 2011)

The caveat was unsustainable in law because Takilla was not a debtor of the plaintiff, and the obligation to pay under the mediation agreement rested solely with the first defendant, who owned no immoveable property. Therefore, the application to lift the caveat would have been successful, and the plaintiff is responsible for the defendants' costs incurred in connection with that application.

Citation
[2011] JRC 158
Parties
Plaintiff: Penelope Ann Clarke; First Defendant: Francis John Callaghan; Second Defendant: Takilla Limited; Third Defendant: Anatole Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Settlement Costs Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis for the application to lift the caveat and for the hearing.
Legal Topics
Caveats, Costs, Mediation Agreements, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Property Law Caveats Costs Mediation Agreements Summary Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penelope Ann Clarke

Plaintiff

Francis John Callaghan

First Defendant

Takilla Limited

Second Defendant

Anatole Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Settlement Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a caveat against the defendants' property
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs incurred in preparation for the application to lift the caveat

Ratio Decidendi

The caveat was unsustainable in law because Takilla was not a debtor of the plaintiff, and the obligation to pay under the mediation agreement rested solely with the first defendant, who owned no immoveable property. Therefore, the application to lift the caveat would have been successful, and the plaintiff is responsible for the defendants' costs incurred in connection with that application.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis for the application to lift the caveat and for the hearing.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis incurred in connection with the application to lift the caveat.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of and incidental to the hearing on the standard basis.