Lara Natalie Fisher (née Walker) v Jacqueline Corinna Walker

CourtRoyal Court
JudgeMatthew John Thompson
Judgment Date18 November 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] JRC 256
Lara Natalie Fisher (née Walker)
First Plaintiff
Jesse Thane Walker
Second Plaintiff


Shane Bourdeaux Walker
Third Plaintiff
Jacqueline Corinna Walker

[2022] JRC 256


Advocate Matthew John Thompson, Master of the Royal Court.



Estate — unless order


Fisher and Anor v Walker [2022] JRC 201.

Newman v De Lima [2018] JRC 155.

Sheyko v Consolidated Minerals [2021] JRC 267.

The Plaintiffs appeared in person.

The Defendant not present.










The application



This judgment contains my reasons in relation to the plaintiffs' application for an unless order due to the defendant not having complied with paragraphs 8 to 11 of an Act of Court dated 14 th July 2022.


The original background to this dispute is set out in my previous judgment in this matter reported at Fisher and Anor v Walker [2022] JRC 201 at paragraphs 2 to 24 of that judgment which I adopt for the purposes of this decision.


For the reasons set out in that judgment I refused to permit the defendant to withdraw from a previous agreement to apply for lifetime gifts she had received.


Since that decision, the defendant has not made a payment into court of the lifetime gifts she received as required and accordingly paragraphs 4a to d, 5b(ii) and 15 of her answer were struck out with the result that she was removed as executor.


As contemplated at paragraph 42 of my previous decision, the plaintiffs have now applied to the Royal Court for a new executor to be appointed.


The present application concerns paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Act of Court of 14 th July 2022 which ordered as follows:-

“8. within 6 weeks the Defendant shall provide the best copies she is able to procure of the Defendant's bank statements at Barclays Bank and by consent the Caveat granted preventing the Defendant from acting as executor is varied to permit the Defendant and/or her advocate to seek copies of such statements;

9. also within 6 weeks the Defendant shall also use her best endeavours to obtain from her bank a written explanation as to why certain statements had been lost in 2018 and 2019;

10. the Defendant is further directed within 6 weeks to seek to obtain bank statements for account number 23720764 at Barclays Bank in Jersey and from any account maintained by the deceased with Credit Agricole, France and the caveat is varied accordingly by consent to permit the Defendant and her advocate to obtain copies of such statements;

11. within 10 weeks of this Act of Court the Defendant shall file an affidavit setting out the Defendant's evidence in full to stand as evidence in chief in relation to:-

a. the Schedule of Loan payments disclosed by the Defendant setting out for each loan payment who the money loaned was actually paid to and how it was used; insofar as any of the loan payments represent any earnings of the Defendant paid into any bank account of the deceased, the Defendant shall explain whether any such earnings or any part of them were used at all for the Defendant's benefit and if so how.

b. why the loan payments are said to be loans and the full circumstances leading to each and every repayment of the loans which took place in 2018;

c. any evidence the Defendant wishes to rely on in relation to any expenses payments that remain disputed and the claim for care…”


The orders at paragraphs 8 and 9 were made because they relate to monies said to have been advanced by the defendant to the deceased.


The defendant in her discovery had also stated that she could not obtain certain bank statements in 2018 and 2019. These dates were important as they related to when the deceased made certain payments to the defendant. This is because in schedule 2 of her affidavit of discovery, the defendant had stated that 2018/2019 bank statements in an account were not recoverable due to a “banking error”. The nature of the error was not explained.


In relation to paragraph 10 the defendant had disclosed that the deceased had these bank accounts but had not provided discovery of the same. Accordingly, the caveat was varied to enable her to obtain these records so that the plaintiffs could verify the statements made in her statement about these bank accounts.


In respect of paragraph 11, in paragraph 9 of her statement sworn on 29 th April 2022, the defendant had explained that she had lent the deceased £39,570.24 which loans the deceased had repaid in tranches in 2018. Attached to her statement was a schedule of loan payments made out of her account, between March 2013 and February 2017. However, these statements simply showed a transfer of funds without any other information or explanation which led to the order at paragraph 11.

The application

As the defendant had not complied with the orders made the plaintiffs sought an unless order. Notification of the application was given to Advocate Emmanuel, who no longer represents the defendant but who remained on the record as an address for service.


The hearing was conducted on video link due to two of the three parties being outside Jersey. The defendant, through Advocate Emmanuel, was also given details of when the hearing was taking place and what information was needed in order for the defendant to take part in the hearing remotely.


At 09:30am on the day of the hearing the defendant emailed my secretary informing me that she was unable to attend the hearing as she was unwell. No medical evidence was supplied in support of this statement and no adjournment was asked for.


She was also critical of her former advocate and expressed her views on the desire of the plaintiffs to become executors. These observations were not relevant to the present application and so I express no views on them. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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