Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/245

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th December 2002 

IN THE MATTER OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES (JERSEY) LAW 1998, AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF COKE-WALLIS JONES DE POLIGNAC TRUSTEES (JERSEY) LIMITED, COKE-WALLIS JONES DE POLIGNAC NOMINEES LIMITED, COKE-WALLIS JONES DE POLIGNAC SECRETARIES LIMITED, PWM TRUSTEES LIMITED, MR. PIERS COKE-WALLIS AND MRS NATALIE COKE-WALLIS AND OTHERS.

Application by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for interim relief under Articles 21 and 23 of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law, 1998.

Advocate J. P. Speck for the Representor.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for interlocutory relief, pursuant to the provisions of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998.  The background to the application is that, on 27^th August, 2002, the Commission issued a direction ("the first direction") addressed to Coke-Wallis Jones de Polignac Trustees (Jersey) Limited ("the company"), Coke-Wallis Jones de Polignac Nominees Limited, Coke-Wallis Jones de Polignac Secretaries Limited, PWM Trustees Limited, Mr Piers Coke-Wallis and Mrs Natalie Coke-Wallis and others containing certain requirements, inter alia,  relating to the appointment of reporting accountants. 

2.        Following a failure on the part of those persons to comply with the first direction, a second direction was issued on 19^th December, 2002 at the offices of the Commission where Mrs Coke-Wallis was served personally.  Both the first and second directions issued by the Commission state expressly that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the direction given under Article 20 shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a term of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.  Paragraph 7 of the second direction expressly requires that no records of files in respect of the company and related entities should be removed from the offices of the company. 

3.        It appears that on the evening of 22^nd December 2002 Mr Coke-Wallis was arrested by the police at the Elizabeth Terminal where he was about to embark on the car ferry for France.  A search of his car revealed that extensive files and records relating to clients of the company and related entities, together with computers, computer equipment and server, computer back-up tapes, and banking and financial records relating to the business and its clients, were present.  We have been told that Mrs Coke-Wallis was arrested shortly afterwards and that both Mr and Mrs Coke-Wallis have been charged with offences under Article 20 of the Financial Services Law. 

4.        The Commission accordingly seeks ex parte relief, pursuant to Articles 21 and 23 of the Financial Services Law.  Article 21(d) provides:

(1)       "Where, on the application of the Commission, the Court is satisfied that it is likely that a person will contravene (or continue or repeat a contravention of) -....

(d) any direction given under Article 20;....

the Court may if it thinks fit issue an injunction restraining that person from committing (or, as the case may be, continuing or repeating) the contravention.

(2)       Where, on the application of the Commission, the Court is satisfied that any person has committed a contravention of a type referred to in any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph (1), and that there are steps which could be taken to remedy the contravention, the Court may make an order requiring that person, or any other person who appears to the Court to have been knowingly concerned, to take such steps as the Court may direct to remedy the contravention."

5.        The Commission accordingly seeks a direction, pursuant to Article 21(2) that the company and related entities, Mr Piers Coke-Wallis, and Mrs Natalie Coke-Wallis shall forthwith and until further order comply with the second direction as referred to above and that failure to comply fully with the second direction shall be a contempt of Court.

6.        Article 23 of the Financial Services Law provides, so far as it is relevant, that:

"(1) Where, on the application of the Commission, the Court is satisfied in relation to a registered person that -...

(b) he has committed or is likely  to commit a contravention of a type referred to in any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph (1) of Article 21;...

the Court may, if it thinks just, make an order making his business subject to such supervision, restraint or conditions, from such time, and for such periods, as the Court may specify, and may also make such ancillary orders as the Court thinks desirable."

It is not necessary for the Court to recite the specific relief sought by the Commission, pursuant to Article 23 but the Court is satisfied that the relief is indeed proper ancillary relief to deal with the situation which has arisen.

7.        The Court is satisfied on the evidence placed before it that it is proper to give these directions pursuant to the Financial Services Law and accordingly makes the four directions set out in paragraph A(1) of the Commission's representation.

8.        Finally, the Court convenes the parties before the Court on the 10^th January 2003 at 2.30 pm.

Authorities

Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998: Articles 20, 21 and 23.