Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JCA085

royal court

(Samedi Division)

21^st May 2008

Before     :

J.W. McNeill, Esq., Q.C., sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

 

In the Matter of Tech Holdings BV and Jeimon Holdings NV.

Mr John Thompson appeared on his own behalf.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Respondent.

judgment

the JUDGE:

1.        I am grateful to both parties for the clarity with which they have presented their positions.  The Court has noted the terms of the notice of appeal and the issues which it raises.  The matters for the Court today are firstly whether to continue the stay of the order of the 6^th May, 2008, and secondly to consider further procedure.

2.        As to the stay, whilst Miss Gilbert has raised certain potential preliminary issues, it would, I think, be premature of this Court to reach a view as to the weight to be attached to those issues for the purpose of considering the extension of the stay.

3.        The principal consideration therefore is prejudice and Miss Gilbert has very fairly indicated that the continuation of the stay would not be of prejudice to the respondents because there are no limitation issues for them. On that basis I consider that the stay should remain. 

4.        That decision means that the issue of further procedure becomes of considerable importance given the existence of the American Order.  In relation to this, as Miss Gilbert has indicated that a period of no more than twenty one days would be required to respond to the Notice of Appeal I take that as the initial bench mark; but I bear in mind that Mr Thompson is seeking to have legal representation and whether he obtains legal representation or whether he has the assistance of the Greffier of this Court in presenting his Notice of Appeal there may require to be revisals of the grounds of appeal. 

5.        It, therefore, seems to me that what this Court must do at this stage is to indicate the time frames within which the parties are required to operate.  Given that the initial time frame suggested by Miss Gilbert is no more than 21 days and given that Mr Thompson would require to respond, it seems to me almost inevitable that the hearing of this matter could not take place in June but could on the other hand take place during the scheduled July Sitting; and given the restricted nature of the issues which the Notice of Appeal raises it seems to me that there should be no difficulty in proceeding towards the July Sitting. 

6.        With those considerations in mind the provisional time frame which I suggest is that the respondents present a response within 21 days or such shorter time as is possible. I recognise that, at this stage, they can only respond to what is presently in Mr Thompson's Notice of Appeal.  However I think the carrying out of that exercise is of potential assistance to Mr Thompson in knowing what are the preliminary issues to which Miss Gilbert has averted.

7.        As to Mr Thompson, given that the matter should be heard at the July Sitting I hope that a decision as to representation or otherwise would be made fairly promptly. I therefore consider that any revisals to the Notice of Appeal should be made within four weeks of this date; that is 19^th June.  Thereafter if there are revisions to the rest of the appeal Miss Gilbert will have the opportunity to submit a further or revised response.  In a matter of this nature, because the issues are fairly readily encompassed, this sort of procedure should be capable of being achieved in a reasonably flexible way between the parties.

8.        For these reasons the stay in this matter will be continued to the date currently set as the last day of the July Sitting of the Court of Appeal of Jersey; and the procedure to be followed in preparation for that hearing is that which I have set out above.

No Authorities