Jersey Unreported Judgments

"Where a suit about a particular matter between a plaintiff and a defendant is already pending in a foreign court which is a natural and appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute between them, and the defendant in the foreign suit seeks to institute as plaintiff an action in England about the same matter to which the person who is plaintiff in the foreign suit is made defendant, then the additional inconvenience and expense which must result from allowing two sets of legal proceedings to be pursued concurrently in two different countries where the same facts will be in issue and the testimony of the same witnesses required can only be justified if the would-be plaintiff can establish objectively by cogent evidence that there is some personal or juridical advantage that would be available to him only in the English action that is of such importance that it would cause injustice to him to deprive him of it."

"First, in general the legal burden of proof rests on the Defendant to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay, although the evidential burden will rest on a party who seeks to establish the existence of matters which will assist him in persuading the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour. Secondly, if the Court is satisfied that there is another available forum which is prima facie the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, the burden will shift to the Plaintiff to show that there are special circumstances by reason of which justice requires that the trial should nevertheless take place in England. Thirdly, the burden on the Defendant is not just to show that England is not the natural or appropriate forum, but to establish that there is another forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum; accordingly, where (as in some commercial disputes) there is no particular forum which can be described as the natural forum, there may be no reason why a stay should not be refused. Fourthly, the Court will look to see what factors there are which point in the direction of another forum as being the "natural forum", ie that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. These will include factors affecting convenience or expense (such as availability of witnesses) and such other factors as the law governing the transaction and the places where the parties reside or carry on business. Fifthly, if the Court concludes at that stage that there is no other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, the Court will ordinarily refuse a stay. Sixthly, if, however, the Court concludes that there is some other available forum which prima facie is clearly more appropriate, it will ordinarily grant a stay unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that a stay should not be granted. At that enquiry, the Court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including circumstances which go beyond those taken into account when considering connecting factors with the jurisdiction. Seventhly, a stay will not be refused simply because the Plaintiff will thereby be deprived of "a legitimate personal or juridical advantage" provided that the Court is satisfied that substantial justice will be done in the available appropriate forum.

In a number of cases an English Court, in deciding whether to grant a stay, took into account differences between English law and the law prevailing in the appropriate forum, such as the more extensive discovery available to litigants in the United States and the less extensive discovery available in civil law jurisdictions."

"Where a suit about a particular matter between a plaintiff and a defendant is already pending in a foreign court which is a natural and appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute between them, and the defendant in the foreign suit seeks to institute as plaintiff an action in England about the same matter to which the person who is plaintiff in the foreign suit is made defendant, then the additional inconvenience and expense which must result from allowing two sets of legal proceedings to be pursued concurrently in two different countries where the same facts will be in issue and the testimony of the same witnesses required can only be justified if the would-be plaintiff can establish objectively by cogent evidence that there is some personal or juridical advantage that would be available to him only in the English action that is of such importance that it would cause injustice to him to deprive him of it."

"Any legal problems which the choice of law element in this action may throw up and indeed, any expense and inconvenience which may be occasioned by the calling of evidence as to Thai law in the Royal Court of Jersey, is, in my view, overshadowed by the importance, in the interests of justice, of having all of these alternative defendants before one court. The plaintiff, having properly commenced his action in Jersey against a Jersey company, is then met with an answer which raises the defence that he was employed not by that company but by a company registered in Thailand. When to this is added the fact that on the evidence available at this stage and to this court, namely the plaintiff’s affidavit, which was not challenged by any opposing evidence, that the two companies in question are part of the same group, the legal catastrophe of having one claim litigated in Jersey and the other in Bangkok is, in my view, self-evident.

I would add not only that it would seem far too late for Rockway to seek to stay the action against them on the ground of forum non conveniens, but also that if they were to seek to do so they would face the insurmountable difficulty that they have already served an answer and thus accepted the jurisdiction of the court."

"the exercise of discretion and in particular the determination of the issue of the forum conveniens .... remains to be governed by the .... decision of the House of Lords in Spiliada".

"Resolved further that the directors hereby ratify the signature of the Ashbourne Yankee letter of intent and assignment of rights agreement approved and executed by Alfred G Mosca on 16 October 1992, in this limited capacity, to bind Yankee Exports, Inc. to the terms and conditions of the said contract as well as to be assigned the benefits of the Yankee Exports, Inc. and Sonangol contract (S)."

"These documents are clearly forged. I did not sign the agreements. The agreements are dated October 16 1992. At that time, neither Yankee Export Limited nor Ashbourne were incorporated. I refer to (a company search) showing that Yankee Export Limited was incorporated on 30 March 1994."

"The complaint in that matter, signed under oath by Mr Ray, states in part that prior to January 28 1999 there were no corporate shareholder meetings of Yankee Exports, Inc. that therefore there has never been an election of directors; that at a shareholder meeting held on January 28 1999, the shareholders were deadlocked and were unable to elect any directors; that since there were no corporate shareholder meetings of Yankee Exports, Inc. prior to January 28 1999 and since the shareholder meeting held on January 28 1999 was deadlocked, Yankee Exports, Inc. has never elected directors; that since directors have never been elected, there has never been an election of officers."

(i) RICO violation;

(ii) Common law fraud;

(iii)Usurpation of Corporate Opportunities;

(iv)Breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Ray who is resident in the State of Connecticut;

(v) Breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Nelson and Mr Weston. Mr Nelson is a licensed attorney in the State of California. Mr Weston is "an employee" of Michael Forrest & Partners. He, like the partnership, is resident in Jersey;

(vi)Negligence - Mr Nelson;

(vii)Negligent misrepresentation;

(viii)Interference with economic relations and expectancies;

(ix)Conversion;

(x) Defamation;

(xi)Punitive damages;

(xii)Unjust enrichment;

(xiii)Equitable fraud

"Therefore please consider this letter formal notice that I am terminating the Consultant Agreement between Ashbourne Marketing Ltd. and myself dated November 26 1993. This notice is complying with the terms of the agreement which requires notice of termination three months in advance of the same. Actual termination will be at the end of three months from the date hereof at which time I will be owed another $25,000 for a total of $139,722".

"Once assigned to the complex track, the Court will discuss with the parties the scope of allowable discovery, ie the number of depositions to be taken and the number of interrogatories allowed to each party. Yankee Exports, Inc. anticipates that there will be numerous depositions taken not only in the United States, but also possibly overseas as well. Yankee Exports, Inc. also anticipates that it will be seeking the production of numerous, if not thousands, of documents relating to the business dealings between the various parties and third parties. In fact, Defendant Michael Nelson, pursuant to a request issued by Yankee Exports, Inc., has already produced parts of his file regarding his dealings on behalf of Yankee Exports, Inc.

In the very near future, Yankee Exports, Inc. will issue further requests for production of documents to the other parties in this matter, and anticipates that it will follow soon thereafter with depositions of the parties, as well as those third parties who may have knowledge of matters relevant to the issues involved in the lawsuit, such as the principals of Sonangol, Nissho Iwai, and Whited Ford, not to mention those persons to whom Ashbourne has paid sums from the Jersey account. In short, there is considerable discovery that will take place within the near future.

Notwithstanding the considerable discovery to be undertaken, matters pending in the District of Maine can expect to be called for trial within 8 to 12 months after issue is joined. Yankee Exports, Inc. therefore anticipates that its action against Ashbourne Marketing Limited will be reached for trial in late 1999 or early 2000.

In January 1999, Mr Alfred Mosca commenced a separate action against Alton ray and Michael Nelson. Such action arose out of the same facts that underlie the action by Yankee Exports, Inc. against Ashbourne Marketing Limited, Alton Ray, Michael Nelson, et al. Although the action was initially filed in the Maine Superior Court, Cumberland County, it was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maine by Defendants’ counsel James Hung, who is the same counsel representing Ashbourne Marketing Limited, Alton Ray, Michael Nelson, et al in the action commenced by Yankee Exports, Inc. There will be filed in the very near future a motion to consolidate both matters due to their similar factual underpinnings. It is anticipated that the consolidated action will proceed to trial within the eight to twelve month period referenced above."