Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC237A

royal court

(Family Division)

11^th December 2007

Application by Annette Marett seeking leave to intervene.

Advocate M. St. J. O'Connell for the Petitioner.

Advocate M. H. Temple for the Respondent.

Advocate P. C. Sinel for the Third Party.

Advocate Journeaux for Annette Marett.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by Mrs Annette Marett, (to whom I refer as "the proposed Intervenor"), to join in matrimonial proceedings between Debra Ann O'Brien, the Petitioner, and Jonathan Charles Marett, the Respondent, to which her husband, Stephen James Marett, has been convened as a Third Party. 

2.        Mr Journeaux argued, on her behalf, that it is possible that claims will be made in the future against property in which she has an interest and that she was accordingly entitled to intervene in order to protect that interest.  I accept that submission and I will order that the proposed Intervenor should be joined as a party to the cause. 

3.        The joinder will however be on terms that she will not be permitted to participate in the argument arising from the summons issued by the Third Party seeking to set aside the consent order, nor the summons issued by the Petitioner seeking to strike out part of that summons of the Third Party.  The reason for those terms is that the proposed Intervenor was content, for many months before the consent order was made, to allow the arguments to be advanced by her husband on behalf of them both and nothing in substance has changed since the time when the consent order was made.  She is not therefore, in my judgment, a necessary party to the proceedings in relation to the hearing of these summonses; to this extent I accept the argument of Mr O'Connell that the application is premature.

(Advocate Journeaux sought leave to appeal and seeks costs on the standard basis).

(Discussion of leave to appeal and costs followed).

4.        Leave to appeal against the decision which I have just made is refused.  This is an interlocutory matter and does not appear to me to be suitable for appeal.  As Mr Journeaux has rightly said there are practical reasons why it would not be appropriate, in any event, for me to grant leave.  So far as the costs of the argument are concerned, it seems to me that the judgment delivered shows that the merits were fairly equally divided between the parties.  In my judgment the just order is therefore that I should make no order for costs and so order.

(Advocate Journeaux and Advocate Sinel seek leave to appeal the costs order).

5.        Leave to appeal is refused and must be pursued before a single judge of the Court of Appeal.  Leave to appeal against the costs orders is refused.

No Authorities