1998/116 - Aldridge v Coxshall [1998] UR 116 (5 June 1998)

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!

BetweenJoan Elizabeth Aldridge (née Fraser)Applicant

AndAlbert Charles CoxshallRespondent

AndBank of Wales PLCFirst Party Cited

AndBank of Wales (Jersey) LimitedSecond Party Cited

Application for a summons under Article 6 (1) and (3) of the Bankers Books Evidence (Jersey) Law, 1986

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an application for a summons under Article 6(1) and (3) of the Bankers Books Evidence (Jersey) Law, 1986. The hearing is inter partes and the application has complied with all the provisions of the Practice Direction (Inspection of Bankers Books) set down by this Court on 14 October 1988 in that we have a very detailed affidavit from the applicant and indeed an affidavit from Advocate Fogarty who represented her in the Petty Debts Court.

The facts of the case could not be simpler. The applicant owns a property in which the respondent has been a tenant for a number of years. Eviction proceedings first came from the Petty Debts Court on 14 January 1998, and were adjourned to see whether the parties could settle the matter by agreement. That was to no avail. The action came back to Court on 28 January 1998, and the applicant’s husband gave evidence on her behalf as she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment at the General Hospital. That hearing was before the Relief Magistrate.

On 27 January, the advocates representing the respondent wrote an open letter to the applicant’s advocate. The whole letter is important, but two passages of it are, for the purposes of this judgment, particularly important. They are as follows:-

"1..... Mr. Coxshall has been accepted on to the States rental waiting list but that the Housing Department do not consider that they would be able to house him in any period less than 12 months and it is therefore that period of delay that I would be requesting in the present eviction proceedings before the Petty Debts Court."

2."The result of the detailed instructions that I have now received from Mr Coxshall also indicate that his only means of income are in virtue of a disability allowance, due to his chronic arthritis and bronchitis, and the income that he receives from lodgers at the property. He has of course attempted to find alternative accommodation but given his circumstances this has so far proved to be impossible and it therefore seems inevitable that Mr Coxshall will have no alternative but to rely upon the States Housing system."

The transcript revealed that the applicant had inherited numerous valuable properties and although they required work to be done on them, it seemed reasonably clear that there would be difficulties in continuing the action successfully on the basis of an impoverished tenant and a landlord who, though very ill, had other valuable properties to realize if she were strapped for cash.

An order was therefore made by consent and the respondent was evicted but with a delay of twelve months before the order would take effect.

The applicant, on 11 March 1998, through her lawyer wrote to the respondent’s advocate in these terms:-

"Dear Advocate Habin

Eviction of Mr A Coxshall from Craigie Doone

Pursuant to the order of 29 January 1998, would you please confirm that on 28 and 29 January 1998, at the time of the hearing, Mr Coxshall had failed to inform you of the following facts:-

1.That prior to, during and after the hearing, Mr Coxshall had been negotiating the lease of the Don Balleine property The Halt, Pontorson Lane, St. Clement which negotiations had already been taking place for some two to three weeks, and which lease he was eventually refused by the trustees on 9 March 1998 on various grounds.

2.That in 1997 he won the Jersey lottery when the prize was £50,000.

3.That during Mr Coxshalls occupation of the property Craigie Doone he has had from three to five lodgers living in the property at any one time, each of whom paid £100 per week.

We would also request a copy of the statement of means that Mr Coxshall should have completed when applying for legal aid, and would be most grateful to receive the copy and the above-mentioned confirmation in writing at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Advocate CM Fogarty"

We do not think that they are particularly germane. The respondent, having had his costs agreed to be paid by the applicant in the consent order, brought an action against her in the Petty Debts Court by way of summons for that sum £2,269.90 plus interest and costs. That sum was eventually paid. However, the applicant had been further alerted to the fact that when the cheque for rental was paid it was drawn on a money market cheque account and enquiries of the Bank of Wales have shown that that money market cheque account requires a minimum sum of £2,500 to be held in it and an account can only be held if the account holder already holds an account at the bank. Suspicions continued to grow. The respondents letter head shows that he is a building contractor and that he had been negotiating to rent the property known as The Halt at St. Clement owned by the Don Balleine Trust. It transpired that had the respondent not moved into the premises to start to redecorate it before the lease had been finalized he might well have taken a lease of the property.

From the information before us, the Judge of the Petty Debts Court has apparently decided that he has jurisdiction to review the consent order and the Court will sit to adjudicate that matter on 15 June. We appreciate that the power given to us to order inspection is a discretionary power and is to be exercised with great caution and only where the grounds are clearly sufficient. If, as we have been told, the Judge of the Petty Debts Court has decided that he has the jurisdiction to review this consent order and is going to do so it would be impossible for him to reach any form of sensible conclusion without having the facts of the finances of the respondent before him. There is no doubt in our mind that the letter of 27 January 1998, had as its intention to show that the respondent was disabled and impoverished. That may very well be the case. All that we have in the affidavit is surmise and suspicion but those matters are easily crystallised and in our view this is an appropriate application and we will grant it accordingly.

We are not minded to go back to the roots of time because the situation must be the situation that pertained shortly before the letter of 27 January 1998, was written and we therefore order that the applicant will be given liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in the bankers books of the first party cited and/or the second party cited in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Law relating to any and all accounts which may have been held in the respondents name. The period of inspection shall be from 29 May 1997 to 29 January 1998, both days included.

The first party cited and the second party cited are to have not only the reasonable costs of and incidental to this application, but also of course their reasonable costs relating to the inspection. The information received is to be used solely for the purpose of the hearing on June 15th and for no other without the express permission of this Court.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/116 - Aldridge v Coxshall [1998] UR 116 (5 June 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/116.html Cite as: [1998] UR 116

Jersey Unreported Judgments