Companies - application under Article 49 of the Bankruptcy (Desastre) Jersey Law 1990.
[2012]JRC076
Before : |
M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Marett-Crosby. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF WILLIAMS AND CLARK
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 49 OF THE BANKRUPTCY (DESASTRE) JERSEY LAW 1990 IN CONNECTION WITH STROBE 2 (IN LIQUIDATION) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES.
Advocate R. A. Leeuwenburg for the Representors.
Advocate C. J. Swart on behalf of the Viscount.
judgment
the Bailiff:
1. This is a matter of procedure, it seems to me, and therefore a matter for me to rule. I consider that we should stick to the normal practice. I am informed that it has hitherto been the almost invariable practice for there to be a Letter of Request where the Court's assistance is sought under Article 49 of the 1990 Law. The one exception seems to have been the case of Cullen but even there the court, having granted the order, said that if anything further was required there would have to be a Letter of Request, so it clearly took a pragmatic view to allow the application without a letter.
2. The statute refers to a request from a court. It seems to me the natural meaning of that is that it is a communication from one court to another. A court order is not a communication from one court to another and therefore it cannot, under the natural language, be deemed to be a request to the other court or from the initiating court. I think the natural meaning of that word is there should be a communication from one court to another so as to constitute a request from one court to another.
3. There is, in addition, a practical reason for thinking it is desirable, namely that put forward by the Viscount, that a letter will contain more detail than an order and will comfort this Court that the requesting court has given its imprimatur to what is being requested.
4. I am going to rule that a Letter of Request is required; it is of course always open to the Royal Court to look at this matter by way of rule and if it is felt that my ruling is unduly restrictive, it may be, after consultation, that the rules can make it clear that a Letter of Request is not required, if that is thought to be the view. But for the moment I am going to rule that it is a requirement that there should be a Letter of Request.
No Authorities