Clive Philip Le Brun Tomes v Piers Ross Coke-Wallis

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 25 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] JRC 173
• Date: 25 September 2002

[2002] JRC 173

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Rumfitt and Le Breton.

Between

Clive Philip Le Brun Tomes

Plaintiff

and

Piers Ross Coke-Wallis

First Defendant

and

Natalie Coke-Wallis

Second Defendant

and

Coke Wallis Jones De Polignac

Trustees (Jersey) Limited

Third Defendant

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for the plaintiff.

The First Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

The other parties did not appear and were not represented.

Authorities

Hotchkiss v Channel Islands Knitwear Company Limited (9th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported: [2000/160D].

Seale Street Developments Limited v Chapman 1992 JLR 243.

Veka A.G. v T.A. Picot (C.I) Limited, Vekaplast Windows (C.I.) Limited Vekaplast Windows (Export) Limited and Picot (1999) JLR 306

Vekaplast Heinrich Laumann KG v T A Picot (C I) Limited and Vekaplast Windows (C I) Limited (1989) JLR 269

Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961: Article 13.

Applications by the First Defendant: (1) under Article 13(e) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961, for leave to appeal against the Order of the Royal Court of 17th July, 2002; and (2) under Rule 15 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) (Jersey) Rules, 1964, for a stay of the Order of 17th July, 2002, pending determination of the appeal.

Bailiff

THE

1 There are two summonses before the Court, both issued by the First Defendant following a judgment delivered by this Court on the 17 ^th July, 2002. The first summons seeks leave to appeal against the summary judgment given in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of £5,200.00 plus interest and costs. The second summons seeks a stay of execution in respect of those two sums, that is to say £5,200.00 plus interest and costs, payable under the Court's judgment.

2 Dealing first with the application for leave to appeal, we raised with both parties the question whether leave to appeal was needed, on the basis that the summary judgment appeared on the face of it to be a final judgment and was for a sum exceeding £3,000. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this was an interlocutory judgment and that leave was accordingly required under the provisions of Article 13 (e) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961. The First Defendant, who appeared on his own behalf expressed agreement with that submission by Counsel.

3 We make no finding on the point because the matter has not been fully argued before us, but we will proceed as...