Viscount v Booth and Investec Bank [2018] JRC 170 (12 September 2018)

Viscount v Booth and Investec Bank [2018] JRC 170 (12 September 2018)

The Court held that the First Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the Viscount's decision was wrong. The alleged erreur was not fundamental to the substance of the contract but related to valuation, which is a matter of opinion and not sufficient to void the contract. The Viscount's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] JRC 170
Parties
First Respondent: Mr Alan Paul Booth; Second Respondent: Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited; Applicant: The Viscount
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy (désastre) Review / Review of Viscount's Decisions Under Article 31 of the Bankruptcy (désastre) (jersey) Law 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed; Viscount's decisions affirmed.
Legal Topics
Désastre Proceedings, Erreur (mistake) in Contract, Judicial Hypothec, Duties of Viscount, Review of Administrative Decisions
Insolvency Bankruptcy Contract Désastre Proceedings Erreur (mistake) in Contract Judicial Hypothec Duties of Viscount Review of Administrative Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Alan Paul Booth

First Respondent

Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited

Second Respondent

The Viscount

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy (désastre) Review / Review of Viscount's Decisions Under Article 31 of the Bankruptcy (désastre) (jersey) Law 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan contracts and judicial hypothecs between the First Respondent and Second Respondent should be set aside for erreur (mistake)
  2. 2 Whether the Viscount is required to conduct further investigation into the causes of the First Respondent's bankruptcy

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the First Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the Viscount's decision was wrong. The alleged erreur was not fundamental to the substance of the contract but related to valuation, which is a matter of opinion and not sufficient to void the contract. The Viscount's investigation into the causes of the désastre was adequate and no further inquiry was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Viscount's decisions affirmed.

Orders

  • The Viscount's decision not to set aside the transactions or security for erreur is upheld.
  • The Viscount is not required to conduct any further investigation into the causes of the désastre.