Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC v Eagle Star Life Assu [2004] JRC 220 (20 December 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2004/2004_220.html
Cite as: [2004] JRC 220

[New search] [Help]

[2004]JRC220

royal court

(Samedi Division)

20^th December 2004

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Georgelin and Allo.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF

	Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC	First Representor

	And

	Zurich Assurance PLC	Second Representor

	And

	Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Limited	Third Representor

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO THE SECOND SCHEDULE TO THE INSURANCE BUSINESS (JERSEY) LAW 1996 AS AMENDED

to sanction the transfer of the long term insurance business carried out by the First and Second Representors to the Third Representor.

Advocate S.M. Gould for the Representors.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1. This is an application by Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC and Zurich Assurance PLC to transfer their long term insurance business in Jersey to a third company, Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Limited, which is a company owned within the same group.

2. The application is brought under Article 26 and the Second Schedule of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996.

3. We have to be satisfied of two things. First, that the procedural requirements set out in the Second Schedule to the Law have been met and secondly, that the Jersey scheme would not operate adversely or unfairly towards policyholders.

4. As to the first requirement we have had affidavit evidence which satisfies us that all the procedural requirements have been met.

5. Turning to the second point, we have a report from the independent actuary who has given us his opinion that there would be no material reduction in either the benefits for policyholders or their security if the transfer were to go ahead.

6. In relation to the second aspect the Economic Development Committee have been consulted and through the Jersey Financial Services Commission they confirm they have no objection. No policyholder has objected.

7. The evidence before us satisfies us that there are no adverse tax consequences either in Jersey, the UK or elsewhere as a result of the scheme, and finally it is right to point out that this is part of a larger scheme which was approved yesterday in the High Court of England regarding the transfer of the business in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

8. In all the circumstances we are satisfied as to the second requirement and therefore we make an order in the terms of the draft supplied to us.

No Authorities