Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/194B

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6th October, 2000.

 

Before: M.C. St.J Birt, Esq., and

Jurats de Veulle and Tibbo.

 

Between                                    L'Eau des Iles Jersey Limited                                    Plaintiff

And                                              A.E. Smith & Sons Limited                                   Defendant

                                                            (by original action)

                                                                       AND

Between                                       A.E. Smith & Sons Limited                                       Plaintiff

And                                            L'Eau des Iles Jersey Limited                                Defendant

                                                             (by counterclaim)

                                                                          

 

The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent matters being placed on the Pending List if satisfied that to do so would be an abuse of its process.

 

 

Advocate M.J. Thompson for the Plaintiff in the original action.

Advocate D.F. Le Quesne for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    I am satisfied from the authority of Eves & Hambros Bank (1995) JLR 344, that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent matters being placed on the Pending List if satisfied that to do so would be an abuse of its process.

 

2.    In this case, the Royal Court has made an order for costs and the Court of Appeal has made an order for costs.  Those orders have subsequently been taxed and the time for appealing against the taxation order has expired.   The judgments of the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal said nothing about the costs not being payable after taxation and the normal rule is that once taxed they are payable.

 

3.    Mr. Le Quesne has in effect submitted that because the plaintiff company is insolvent there might be prejudice if it now has to pay these sums and is subsequently successful and it would like to argue that the order for costs should be stayed.

 

4.    In our judgment that is far too late for that to take place.  The application should have been made either at the time or at any time since then, but not now.  In our judgment, it would be an abuse of process for this matter to be placed on the Pending List.  We therefore decline to do so and we grant judgment in the aggregate sum in the summons, which is £20,098.63, with interest from the date of the summons until date of payment, costs and permission to sell.

 

Authorities.

 

Eves & Hambros Bank (1995) JLR 344. Privy Council.