Abdel Rahman v Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Company Ltd and Five Others

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Crill, Deputy Bailiff):
Judgment Date19 January 1983
Date19 January 1983
ROYAL COURT
(Crill, Deputy Bailiff):

W.J. Bailhache for the plaintiff;

F.C. Hamon for the first and third of the third defendants.

Civil Procedurepleadingstriking outembarrassment of fair triallarge number of witnesses and increased cost involved in subsidiary allegation do not "embarrass" fair trial of action to justify striking out that allegation in pleadings

Civil Procedurepleadingstriking outprejudice of fair trialmay strike out subsidiary allegations in pleadings under Royal Court Rules 1982, r.6/13 which "prejudice" fair trial by obscuring main issue

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF: This matter arises from the Representation of Clothilde Sami Abdel Rahman made on the 24th July, 1981. For the purposes of the present case she may be described as the widow of Karmel Abdel Rahman, whom all the parties have agreed to call Kar, and who on the 18th June, 1977, executed a settlement which purports to be governed by the law of this Bailiwick. In the representation the plaintiff attacks the settlement (and other related documents which are not relevant to the present argument) on two grounds. First, that the settlement was made contrary to Jersey law, and secondly, that since Kar was domiciled in Lebanon at the time of the settlement's execution it was invalid also because it was contrary to the Moslem law of the Hanaffi School of the Sunni Sect. The Representation was ordered to be served on the first defendant, Chase Bank (C.I.) Trust Company Limited, trustee of the settlement, and was returnable on the 18th September, 1981. It contained as well a number of injunctions, not relevant to the present case, which were varied subsequently by agreement. On the 17th December, 1981, two of the named third defendants, that is to say Ferial Abdel Rahman, wife of Nabil Beydoun, and Nadia Abdel Rahman, wife of Khaled Haroun, for both of whom Mr. Hamon appears, applied for further and better particulars of the allegations in the Representation as to the claim, firstly, that at the time of the settlement Kar was domiciled in Lebanon and secondly, that he died intestate. In the meantime the other defendants, apart from the first defendant, had been served through their advocates. The time for filing the particulars was extended for fifty-six days from the 24th February, 1982, and a further extension was granted on the 27th April, 1982, although there had been an application to strike out the representation because the particulars had not been supplied within the first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT