Jersey Unreported Judgments

Taxation - further ruling on question of leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

[2013]JCA261

Court of Appeal

30 December 2013

Advocate A. D. Hoy for the First Appellant.

Advocate J. Harvey-Hills for the Second Appellant.

Advocate J. D. Kelleher for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

THE president:

1.        We have read the e mail sent by Advocate Harvey-Hills to the Greffe on 27^th December, 2013 and (Advocate Kelleher's e-mail response of the same date and further e mail response of 30^th December 2013.  Mr Larsen invites us to reconsider our imposition of a condition on the stay that any application for permission to appeal to the Privy Council be filed by 10am 8^th January, 2014 ("the specified time").

2.        Advocate Harvey-Hills suggests that both parties proceeded on the basis that the application for permission to appeal would be determined at an oral hearing.  However we directed the parties to make their submissions on the application in writing in lieu of orally.  It is not suggested by Advocate Harvey-Hills that (or how) such procedure was either irregular or unfair.

3.        We accept that Rule 11(2) of the Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules 2009 ("the Rules") gives an appellant 56 days in which to lodge an application for leave to appeal.  Our judgment did not purport to contradict that rule.  However, we  considered it appropriate to attach as quid pro quo for imposition of a stay, depriving the Comptroller pro tem from further exercise under the Regulations of his powers to respond to a long standing request from an overseas regulator, which, according to our judgment(to the same effect as that of the Royal Court) he was otherwise in law free to exercise ,a condition that Mr Larsen and Volaw ("the putative Appellants") make their application for permission to the Privy Council expeditiously.  It was implicit in our judgment that, as is obvious there should be minimum delay in final resolution of this appeal in which an overseas regulator has an important interest and which has potential implications for the relationship between Norway and the Bailiwick.

4.        However the specified time was chosen on the premise that the parties would receive our judgment on the day on which it was sent to the Greffe,  being the 19^th December, 2013,and not, as transpired, through reasons of internal administration, on the 27^th December, 2013.  For that reason, conscious of the fact that the latter date falls in the middle of the holiday season, we consider that we should extend the specified time (a point accepted by Advocate Kelleher, once cognisant of the change of premise).

5.        As to by how much, we consider that Advocate Harvey-Hills exaggerates the problems caused by requiring as a condition of enjoyment of the benefit of a stay an obligation to lodge the application before the expiry of the 56 day period set out in the Rules.  The putative Appellants' case has been advanced at two hearings already; and the written submissions made to us on the application for permission were detailed and ample.  The putative Appellants must surely be taken now to know what their essential case is.  Furthermore the Judicial Committee's practice direction 3 emphasises the need for succinctness in any application for permission to appeal, stating in particular that the requirement is for "a brief summary of the reasons why permission to appeal should be granted". The existing legal teams of the putative Appellants are, in our view, well capable of satisfying that requirement without the assistance of English Leading Counsel not hitherto involved, or identified.  If the case proceeds to a full hearing before the Privy Council there will be adequate opportunity for any such he or she to put his or her imprint on the putative Appellants case.

6.        For those reasons we vary the specified time to 10am on 17^th January, 2014 (24 hours later than that proposed by Advocate Kelleher).  If any application for permission to appeal is not lodged by that day, the stay (unless varied by consent or by the Privy Council itself) will lapse.  If it is, the stay will subsist until otherwise ordered by the Privy Council.

Authorities

Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules 2009.