LE MARQUAND and BACKHURST v CHILTMEAD Ltd (by its Liquidator, HALLS)

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeCrill, Bailiff:
Judgment Date27 March 1987
Date27 March 1987
ROYAL COURT
Crill, Bailiff:

Miss C.J. Dorey for the plaintiffs;

D.F. Le Quesne for the defendant.

Cases cited:

(1) Ayres, Re, ex p. Evans (1981), 51 Fed.L.R. 395; 34 Aust LR 582; (1981), 7 C.L.B. 1256; on appeal, sub nom. Ayres v. Evans (1981), 56 Fed.L.R. 235; 39 Aust LR 129, followed.

(2) Buchanan (Peter) Ltd. v. McVey, [1955] A.C. 516; [1954] I.R. 89; (1951), 90 I.L.T.R. 121, distinguished.

(3) India (Govt. of) v. Taylor, [1955] A.C. 491; [1955] 1 All E.R. 292; (1955), 48 R. & I.T. 98; 99 Sol. Jo. 94; sub nom. In re Delhi Elec. Supply & Traction Co. Ltd., Govt. of India v. Taylor, [1955] T.R. 9; (1955), 34 A.T.C. 10.

(4) Norway (State of) Application, In re, [1987] Q.B. 433; sub nom. Re Jahre v. State of Norway, [1986] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 496, followed.

(5) Walmsley, Re, 1983 J.J. 35, distinguished.

(6) Williams & Humbert Ltd. v. W. & H. Trademarks (Jersey) Ltd., [1988] A.C. 368; [1986] 1 All E.R. 129; (1985), 130 Sol. Jo. 37, distinguished.

Additional case cited by counsel:

Rossano v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., [1963] 2 Q.B. 352.

Legislation construed:

Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Jersey) Law, 1960, art. 3(2)(b): The relevant terms of this sub-paragraph are set out at page 90, lines 40-41.

Texts cited:

Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 9th ed., at 75 (1973).

Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 7, para. 1110, at 648; para 1112, at 649.

Conflict of Lawsapplication of foreign lawforeign revenue lawregistration in Jersey of UK judgment in favour of company liquidator against defaulting director not enforcement of foreign revenue claim merely because judgment includes substantial element in respect of tax due in UK

The plaintiffs sought to recover debts owed to them by the defendant company, which had gone into liquidation.

Prior to the winding up of the defendant company in England, Mr. Stewart, one of its beneficial owners, brought funds belonging to the company to Jersey. The company was subsequently found to be unable to pay its debts: it owed various creditors over 400,000 (of which the UK Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise were together owed 97%) and there was a deficiency of over 120,000. After the making of the winding-up order, the liquidator obtained judgment in the Chancery Division in England against Mr. Stewart for 510,000 plus interest, on the basis that he had acted in breach of trust and was guilty of misfeasance as a director of the company in misappropriating its assets. Mr. Stewart did not satisfy the judgment.

The present plaintiffs then obtained judgment in the Royal Court against Mr. Stewart for some 12,500 owed to them but the judgment again remained unsatisfied. When, on the application of the liquidator, the Royal Court registered the earlier English judgment under the Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Jersey) Law, 1960, the plaintiffs brought the present proceedings seeking to have the registration set aside, at least to the extent that certain of the arrests made on Mr. Stewart's Jersey assets be lifted to the amount of the plaintiffs' judgment and costs.

The plaintiffs submitted that their judgment should take priority over the registration in favour of the liquidator; and further that, in any event, he was indirectly seeking to enforce a revenue claim by the authorities of the United Kingdom, which, for the purposes of their case, the plaintiffs submitted was a foreign jurisdiction, the revenue laws of which the Royal Court would not enforce.

The defendant submitted that the plaintiffs' judgment should not take priority over the registration and that, since the claim of the Inland Revenue was not the only claim and the defendants had a duty to the other creditors, the action was in pursuance of that duty and not an attempt to enforce a foreign revenue law.

Held, dismissing the representation:

The court did not have the power to set aside its own previous decision to register the liquidator's judgment under the Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Jersey) Law, 1960, art. 3, on the assumption that it was not a judgment for the recovery of "money . . . payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature" within the meaning of art. 3(2)(b). While the court would normally uphold the principle that it would not enforce, either directly or indirectly, the revenue laws of a foreign state, the liquidator's claim was not one made as the agent of the UK Inland Revenue, nor was it limited to the recovery of tax, and the fact that on repatriation the money would largely be used to satisfy an Inland Revenue debt did not make it an attempt to enforce a foreign revenue claim in Jersey (page 90, lines 20-38; page 91, lines 3-9; page 93, line 40 - page 94, line 10; page 95, lines 23-28).

CRILL, BAILIFF: Chiltmead Ltd. is a company incorporated in England in 1967. It dealt mainly in electrical equipment. In 1976 it was acquired...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Clapham (as attorney of Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd, Executor of the Will of Le Mesurier, née Le Brocq) v Le Mesurier
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 11 March 1991
    ...Jo. 497, applied. (8) Kaufman, In re, [1952] P. 325; [1952] 2 All E.R. 261; (1952), 96 Sol. Jo. 562. (9) Le Marquand v. Chiltmead Ltd., 1987-88 JLR 86, distinguished. (10) Midgley v. Midgley, [1893] 3 Ch. 282; (1892), 62 L.J.Ch. 905; 41 W.R. 659; 9 T.L.R. 565; 37 Sol. Jo. 616. (11) Rossano ......
  • Re Norway's (State of) Application
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 16 February 1989
  • Tucker
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 7 July 1988
    ...J. followed. (5) Debtor, Re a, ex p. Viscount of Royal Ct., [1981] Ch. 384; [1980] 3 All E.R. 665. (6) Le Marquand v. Chiltmead Ltd., 1987-88 JLR 86. (7) Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. 645 ([1968] UKPC 18); [1968] 3 All E.R. 561; (1968), 112 Sol. Jo. 1007. (8) Moore v. Mitchel......

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