Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC141A

royal court

(Samedi Division)

11^th October 2006 

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Plaintiff.

Advocate M. C. Goulborn for the first and second Defendants

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        In the light of the judgment we have just formally delivered, in my judgment this is a case for indemnity costs.  I accept that there must be some special or unusual feature as set out in Dixon v Jefferson Seal [1998] JLR 47 and Jones - Jones [1985-86] JLR 40.  But in my judgment such features exist in this case.  They arise out of a combination of circumstances which cumulatively lead me to that conclusion.

2.        First, there was the late disclosure of documents by the defendants, only a matter of days before the trial.  These were critical documents which in fact showed what had happened to the money.  Secondly, there was the fact that arguments were raised and then dropped, for example the argument on Guernsey law, and thirdly arguments were persisted in which were absolutely hopeless.  I have in mind for example the argument about there being insufficient cause for the guarantees.  In my judgment these arguments were wholly without merit. 

3.        I should add in addition that the counterclaim was a hopeless claim and in relation to the first loan and other matters the evidence of Dr Haden-Taylor was found to be extraordinarily unsatisfactory as the Court made clear by necessary implication, and occasionally expressly.  It is clear that he was untruthful in a number of respects.  When all these matters are put together I have no difficulty in finding that these do amount to special or unusual features and I order therefore indemnity costs against both defendants jointly and severally.

4.        I should add for the sake of clarity that Mr Goulborn came late to this case and therefore the criticisms do not extend to him in any way.

Authorities

Dixon v Jefferson Seal [1998] JLR 47.

Jones v Jones [1985-86] JLR 40.