Black and Others v JFSC [2008] JCA 008 (23 January 2008)

Black and Others v JFSC [2008] JCA 008 (23 January 2008)

Special circumstances exist justifying security for costs due to appellants' residence outside Jersey and lack of assets within the jurisdiction. The Royal Court's order for security of £14,000 was fair and justified. Further security is appropriate but should not be disproportionate; a total of £20,000 is ordered. The application for a stay is refused, but time for compliance is extended. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to manage the conduct of the appeal pending substantive determination.

Citation
[2008] JCA 008
Parties
Appellant/first Plaintiff: A P Black (Jersey) Limited; Appellant/second Plaintiff: Mr Alistair P Black; Appellant/third Plaintiff: Mrs Eila A Black; Appellant/fourth Plaintiff: A P Black Limited (UK); Respondent: The Jersey Financial Services Commission
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Security for Costs and Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application for stay refused; further security ordered
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Costs Orders, Public Interest Litigation, Discontinuance, Collective Investment Schemes
Civil Procedure Financial Regulation Security for Costs Appeals Costs Orders Public Interest Litigation Discontinuance Collective Investment Schemes

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A P Black (Jersey) Limited

Appellant/first Plaintiff

Mr Alistair P Black

Appellant/second Plaintiff

Mrs Eila A Black

Appellant/third Plaintiff

A P Black Limited (UK)

Appellant/fourth Plaintiff

The Jersey Financial Services Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Security for Costs and Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Royal Court's order requiring appellants to provide security for costs be stayed pending appeal?
  2. 2 Should further security be ordered for costs of the appeal?
  3. 3 Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to interfere with terms of leave to appeal imposed by the Royal Court?

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances exist justifying security for costs due to appellants' residence outside Jersey and lack of assets within the jurisdiction. The Royal Court's order for security of £14,000 was fair and justified. Further security is appropriate but should not be disproportionate; a total of £20,000 is ordered. The application for a stay is refused, but time for compliance is extended. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to manage the conduct of the appeal pending substantive determination.

Court Disposition

application for stay refused; further security ordered

Orders

  • Appellants must provide security for costs of £14,000 within 28 days.
  • Appellants must provide additional security of £6,000 within 28 days for matters outside leave already granted.