Bagus Inv Ltd -v- Kastening [2010] JRC 144 (05 August 2010)
The defendant has an arguable defence that a claim for knowing receipt does not fall within Article 57(1) of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 and is therefore subject to prescription. Leave to amend would deprive the defendant of the opportunity to argue prescription, so it must be refused.
- Citation
- [2010] JRC 144
- Parties
- Applicant: Plaintiff (BVI company); Respondent: Defendant
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 05 August 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Grant Leave to Re Amend Order of Justice
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Knowing Receipt, Limitation/prescription, Constructive Trusts, Amendment of Pleadings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Plaintiff (BVI company)
Applicant
Defendant
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Grant Leave to Re Amend Order of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a claim for knowing receipt is prescribed under Jersey law
- 2 Whether the draft re-amended Order of Justice properly pleads knowing receipt
- 3 Whether the Court should exercise discretion against amendment due to plaintiff's conduct
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant has an arguable defence that a claim for knowing receipt does not fall within Article 57(1) of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 and is therefore subject to prescription. Leave to amend would deprive the defendant of the opportunity to argue prescription, so it must be refused.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to re-amend Order of Justice refused
- Costs awarded to defendant for hearing before Royal Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment