Fry v Rowlandson [2018] JRC 234 (19 December 2018)

Fry v Rowlandson [2018] JRC 234 (19 December 2018)

The Master of the Royal Court does not possess jurisdiction to reinstate an action deemed withdrawn under Rule 6/25(1) of the Royal Court Rules 2004; only the Royal Court has such inherent jurisdiction. The Master’s limited inherent jurisdiction does not extend to reinstating actions automatically withdrawn by operation of the Rules.

Citation
[2018] JRC 234
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (name not specified); Defendant: Defendant (name not specified)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Application to Reinstate Proceedings Deemed Withdrawn Under Rule 6/25(1) Royal Court Rules 2004
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Reinstatement of Proceedings, Deemed Withdrawal, Relief From Sanction, Delay and Prejudice, Fair Trial Rights
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Inherent Jurisdiction Reinstatement of Proceedings Deemed Withdrawal Relief From Sanction Delay and Prejudice Fair Trial Rights

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (name not specified)

Plaintiff

Defendant (name not specified)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Application to Reinstate Proceedings Deemed Withdrawn Under Rule 6/25(1) Royal Court Rules 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Master of the Royal Court possess inherent jurisdiction to reinstate an action deemed withdrawn under Rule 6/25(1)?
  2. 2 If such jurisdiction exists, how should it be exercised?
  3. 3 Should the plaintiff's action be reinstated on the merits?

Ratio Decidendi

The Master of the Royal Court does not possess jurisdiction to reinstate an action deemed withdrawn under Rule 6/25(1) of the Royal Court Rules 2004; only the Royal Court has such inherent jurisdiction. The Master’s limited inherent jurisdiction does not extend to reinstating actions automatically withdrawn by operation of the Rules.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The Master has no jurisdiction to reinstate the proceedings; application must be made to the Royal Court.