Treasurer of the States -v- Creavy [2017] JRC 154 (21 September 2017)

Treasurer of the States -v- Creavy [2017] JRC 154 (21 September 2017)

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision to place the action on the pending list was procedurally correct, recognizing a potential defence, and did not raise a point of law or principle that required immediate appellate intervention. The issues raised were not directly decided by the interlocutory order and should be addressed, if at all, after further argument and a decision by the Royal Court.

Citation
[2017] JRC 154
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Income Tax Recovery, Pending List Procedure, Leave to Appeal, Article 6 ECHR Compliance, Summary Judgment
Tax Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Income Tax Recovery Pending List Procedure Leave to Appeal Article 6 ECHR Compliance 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the decision to place the action on the pending list
  2. 2 Whether the statutory appeal process under the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 is Article 6 ECHR compliant
  3. 3 Whether the Comptroller's certificate under Article 44 is conclusive evidence of tax liability

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision to place the action on the pending list was procedurally correct, recognizing a potential defence, and did not raise a point of law or principle that required immediate appellate intervention. The issues raised were not directly decided by the interlocutory order and should be addressed, if at all, after further argument and a decision by the Royal Court.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • standard costs awarded against the Plaintiff in respect of the application for leave to appeal