1999/185 - Armco v Donohue and Ors [1999] UR 185 (25 October 1999)

1999/185 - Armco v Donohue and Ors [1999] UR 185 (25 October 1999)

Ongoing disclosure was refused as there was no evidence of breach of injunctions, the amount frozen was known, and the scenario of excessive fees was unrealistic. Ancillary disclosure orders are not to be made routinely but only when necessary for policing the injunction.

Citation
[1999] UR 185
Parties
Applicant: Plaintiffs; Respondent: Fifth Defendant; Respondent: Sixth Defendant; Respondent: Sixth Party Cited; Third Party: Abacus Financial Services
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
First summons agreed; second summons refused.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Ancillary Disclosure, Costs
Civil Procedure Injunctions Mareva Injunction Ancillary Disclosure Costs

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

Parties

Plaintiffs

Applicant

Fifth Defendant

Respondent

Sixth Defendant

Respondent

Sixth Party Cited

Respondent

Abacus Financial Services

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ancillary disclosure orders should be made to police Mareva injunctions
  2. 2 Whether ongoing disclosure is necessary in the circumstances
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs and disbursements

Ratio Decidendi

Ongoing disclosure was refused as there was no evidence of breach of injunctions, the amount frozen was known, and the scenario of excessive fees was unrealistic. Ancillary disclosure orders are not to be made routinely but only when necessary for policing the injunction.

Court Disposition

First summons agreed; second summons refused.

Orders

  • Interim injunctions varied to increase legal costs and disbursements for fifth and sixth defendants to $10,668.00 and £19,396.70; ongoing American legal costs capped at $50,000 per month for three months from 20 July 1999; further payment for Jersey proceedings not exceeding £15,000; reinstatement of fifth and sixth...