SWM Ltd. v. Jersey Fin. Servs. Commn. [2016] 1 JLR 65 (21 January 2016)

SWM Ltd. v. Jersey Fin. Servs. Commn. [2016] 1 JLR 65 (21 January 2016)

A payment for expert evidence to respond to regulatory action may be considered in the ordinary course of business, depending on the specific facts, and is not automatically excluded because it is exceptional or one-off.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] 1 JLR 65
Parties
Applicant: SWM Ltd.; Respondent: Jersey Financial Services Commission
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Directions by Regulatory Authority, Ordinary Course of Business, Payments for Expert Evidence
Financial Services Regulation Directions by Regulatory Authority Ordinary Course of Business Payments for Expert Evidence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SWM Ltd.

Applicant

Jersey Financial Services Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether payment for expert evidence in response to regulatory action is in the 'ordinary course of business' under a direction by the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

Ratio Decidendi

A payment for expert evidence to respond to regulatory action may be considered in the ordinary course of business, depending on the specific facts, and is not automatically excluded because it is exceptional or one-off.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Payment for expert evidence permitted as in the ordinary course of business