Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> C N Ltd v Teighmore and ors [2004] JRC 195 (08 November 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2004/2004_195.html
Cite as: [2004] JRC 195

[New search] [Help]

[2004]JRC195

royal court

(Samedi Division)

8^th November, 2004.

Before:

P.R. Le Cras, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle and Newcombe.

Between	C.N. Limited	Representor

And	Teighmore Limited	First Respondent

And	Sellar Properties London 2 Limited	Second Respondent

And	New Malden House Limited	Third Respondent

And	Leslie Norman	Fourth Respondent

And	Owen Lynch	Fifth Respondent

And	Sten Mortstedt	Sixth Respondent

Application by the Representor for directions as to whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Representor's application for injunctions.

Advocate M.J. Thompson for the Representor.

The First Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

Advocate M.H.D. Taylor for the Second and Fourth Respondents.

Advocate F.B. Robertson for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Respondents.

Advocate A.J. Belhomme, on behalf for the Attorney General.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1. In this case, the Court enquired first of Mr Thompson whether his clients were able in law to make an application for injunctions to the court in the present circumstances. Mr Thompson conceded the application was not made under the Joint Venture Agreement but maintained that it was made under Article 141 of the Companies (Jersey) Law which refers to Article 143.

2. His problem here was that the words "well founded" in Article 143 were construed in Albert Abela Holdings -v- Albert Abeba Ameropa [1993]JLR386 after the facts had been heard out and the Court was satisfied with the evidence. However, Mr Thompson takes the point that in my judgment in Abela, I said:

"The point is a short one. It is not concerned with whether the court has an inherent part in order to preserve assets pendente lite. It is whether the terms of the law permit the court to make an order under this article of the Companies (Jersey ) Law 1991"

3. However, that case was not concerned with the inherent powers of the Court. That point was not argued and indeed in that case Mr Binnington's submission at p.394 expressly noted this point, viz:-

"He repeated his submission "that under Article 143, the Court's powers do not arise until the statutory grounds are satisfied. If an injunction is to be imposed it should be imposed by the Court in the exercise of its ordinary powers."

4. Mr Thompson therefore requested that the Court exercise its inherent powers to consider the application, a submission not opposed by the other parties.

5. The Court does not consider it has to refine the point as done by Neuberger J in In re X Ltd (26^th April, 2001) Times Law Reports but will proceed to hear the applications in the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction, a point, as stated above, neither put to it, nor discussed in a Abela

Authorities

Companies (Jersey) Law Articles 141 to 143.

Companies Act 1985: ss 459 to 461.

Alpha Print Limited -v- Alphagraphics Printshops (1989) JLR152.

Albert Abela Holdings -v- Albert Abela Ameropa (1993) JLR386.

Robertson -v- Slous ad Ors (2002)JLR361.

Re a company [1985] BCLC80.

Re a Company, O'Neill and another -v- Phillips [1992] 2 ALL ER 961.

Victor Joffe: Minority Shareholders: Law, Practice and Procedure (2^nd Ed'n) pp 247 to 250.

Posgate & Denby (Agencies) Ltd [1987]BCLC8.

In re X, Ltd, a company (26^th April, 2001) Times Law Reports.