BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Eagle Star -v- Zurich Ins 20-Mar-2006 [2006] JRC 049 (29 March 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2006/2006_049.html Cite as: [2006] JRC 049, [2006] JRC 49 |
[New search] [Help]
[2006]JRC049
royal court
(Samedi Division)
29th March 2006
Before : |
F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Le Brocq and Le Cornu. |
In the matter of Eagle Start Insurance Company Limited.
And in the matter of Zurich Insurance Company.
And in the matter of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996.
Advocate M. C. Goulborn
judgment
the COMMISSIONER:
1. This is an application under Article 27 and Schedule 2 of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996 for the sanction of this Court to transfer to the Zurich Insurance Company part of the general insurance business of Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited.
2. The business is carried out in the United Kingdom, other European Economic Area States and, for the purposes of this application, Jersey which, of course, is not a European Economic Area State and is not part of the United Kingdom.
3. The application is in a sense subsidiary to an application which has been approved by the High Court of Justice in England under English legislation on 28th March, 2006. We have, of course, an unfettered discretion but the commercial judgment of the Board of Eagle Star has to be taken into account and in the words of Mr Justice Hoffman (as he then was) in Re London Life Association Limited unreported 21st February 1989 :
4. We have heard personally from Mr Woodroffe of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and considered the affidavits and exhibits put together by Advocate Goulborn. We note that there has been no objection raised after proper notice. In those circumstances we have no hesitation in approving the scheme as put forward.