Application by defendant to raise disclosure injunction in Plaintiffs Order of Justice Refused
Before : |
Sir Peter Crill, K. B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Ruez and Le Brocq |
Between |
The State of Qatar |
Plaintiff |
And |
Sheikh Khalifa Bin Hamad Al-Thani |
Defendant |
|
ANZ Grindlays Bank (Jersey) Limited |
First Party Cited |
|
Terbury, Limited |
Second Party Cited |
|
Callington, Limited |
Third Party Cited |
|
Yukon Investments Limited |
Fourth Party Cited |
|
Virosa Limited |
Fifth Party Cited |
|
Mercury Asset Management Channel Islands Limited |
Sixth Party Cited |
|
Clyde Investments Limited |
Seventh Party Cited |
Application by the Defendant to lift a disclosure injunction in the Plaintiff’s amended Order of Justice.
Advocate B.E. Troy for the Plaintiff
Advocate N.F. Journeaux for the Defendant
judgment
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. In Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard, (24th July, 1997) Jersey Unreported, the application was only for disclosure within the jurisdiction; nonetheless, we certainly follow the learned Bailiff’s reasoning in that Judgment when he says:
“… but can it be said that the defendant is enjoined to do or to refrain from doing something within the jurisdiction? The affidavit could, and no doubt would, be given outside the jurisdiction.”
2. Nevertheless, the proposal of the Plaintiff here is slightly wider, asking for disclosure of the current value of the assets and their current location, including the jurisdiction, as applicable, in which they are held or administered. For myself, whilst I see your argument, Mr. Journeaux, I think I can distinguish between that case and the present one and am now prepared to hear argument as to the extent to which the Order should be varied.
Authorities
Krohn GmbH -v- Varna Shipyard (24th July, 1997) Jersey Unreported.