Crociani v Crociani and Ors [2018] JRC 230C (14 December 2018)

Crociani v Crociani and Ors [2018] JRC 230C (14 December 2018)

The Fifth Defendant has had ample notice and provided no valid reason for non-compliance; the fee dispute with former counsel cannot impede enforcement; the information sought is necessary for execution of the judgment; and the Fifth Defendant's reasonable costs will be covered. The court is satisfied that the Fifth Defendant possesses relevant information and there is no prejudice in ordering disclosure, subject to protection under Monaco law for the criminal complaint document.

Citation
[2018] JRC 230C
Parties
Applicant: Third Defendant; Respondent: Fifth Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Post Judgment Application / Application for Further Disclosure and Production of Document
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; both disclosure applications granted.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Freezing Orders, Third Party Disclosure, Execution of Judgments
Civil Procedure Asset Recovery Enforcement of Judgments Disclosure Orders Freezing Orders Third Party Disclosure Execution of Judgments

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

Parties

Third Defendant

Applicant

Fifth Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Post Judgment Application / Application for Further Disclosure and Production of Document

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fifth Defendant should be compelled to provide further disclosure regarding the First Defendant's assets
  2. 2 Whether the Fifth Defendant should produce the full 22-page document relating to a criminal complaint in Monaco
  3. 3 Whether the application for adjournment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Fifth Defendant has had ample notice and provided no valid reason for non-compliance; the fee dispute with former counsel cannot impede enforcement; the information sought is necessary for execution of the judgment; and the Fifth Defendant's reasonable costs will be covered. The court is satisfied that the Fifth Defendant possesses relevant information and there is no prejudice in ordering disclosure, subject to protection under Monaco law for the criminal complaint document.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; both disclosure applications granted.

Orders

  • Fifth Defendant to provide further disclosure regarding the First Defendant's assets as per the draft order.
  • Fifth Defendant to produce the full 22-page Monaco criminal complaint document, subject to Monaco law and provision of legal advice if disclosure is prohibited.