Sinel Trust v Rothfield Investments [2003] JRC 009A (16 January 2003)

Sinel Trust v Rothfield Investments [2003] JRC 009A (16 January 2003)

Mr Sinel acted improperly by communicating with the Bamfords before the terms of the redacted Act were agreed and after being notified of an application to stay such communication; this conduct fell below the standard expected of an officer of the Court and justified a personal indemnity costs order against him.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] JRC 009A
Parties
Applicant: Sinel Trust Limited and three Sinel nominee companies; Beneficiary: Mrs Ellis; Respondents/interested Parties: Mrs Marjorie Bamford, Sir Anthony Bamford and Mr Mark Bamford
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions / Post Judgment Hearing on Compliance and Conduct
Outcome
Application for stay refused; costs ordered personally against Mr Sinel on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Directions to Trustees, Confidentiality of Beneficiaries, Notification of Interested Parties, Professional Standards for Advocates, Costs Orders
Trust Law Professional Conduct Directions to Trustees Confidentiality of Beneficiaries Notification of Interested Parties Professional Standards for Advocates Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Sinel Trust Limited and three Sinel nominee companies

Applicant

Mrs Ellis

Beneficiary

Mrs Marjorie Bamford, Sir Anthony Bamford and Mr Mark Bamford

Respondents/interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions / Post Judgment Hearing on Compliance and Conduct

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a redacted Act of Court should be sent to the Bamfords prior to appeal resolution
  2. 2 Whether Mr Sinel's conduct in communicating with the Bamfords was appropriate
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the hearing caused by the premature communication

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sinel acted improperly by communicating with the Bamfords before the terms of the redacted Act were agreed and after being notified of an application to stay such communication; this conduct fell below the standard expected of an officer of the Court and justified a personal indemnity costs order against him.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; costs ordered personally against Mr Sinel on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Redacted Act to contain only paragraphs (1) and (2) of the draft, not paragraph (3).
  • Mr Sinel to pay the costs of and incidental to the hearing personally on an indemnity basis.