Maya Mayur Patel v JTC Trust Company Ltd (formerly Minerva Trust Company Ltd)

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Matthew John Thompson
• Judgment Date: 12 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] JRC 150

Between

(1) Maya Mayur Patel

(2) Mayur Patel

(3) Mumta Patel

(4) Priyanka Patel

Plaintiffs

and

JTC Trust Company Limited (formerly Minerva Trust Company Limited)

Defendants

and

(1) Prakashchandra Patel

(2) Gaurang Patel

(3) Illakumari Patel

(4) Parthiv Patel

(5) Akash Patel

(6) Vimalrai Patel

(7) Darshnaben Patel

(8) Alakh Patel

(9) Harshal Patel

(10) Laxman Varsani

(11) Chaitanya Varsani

(12) Medha Varsani

Third Parties

[2022] JRC 150

Before:

Advocate Matthew John Thompson, Master of the Royal Court.

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Trust.

Authorities

Patel v JTC Trust Company Limited and Ors [2022] JRC 089.

Cunningham v Cunningham [2009] JLR 227.

Royal Court Rules 2004.

Makarenko v CIS Emerging Growth Limited [2001] JLR 348

Trico Limited v Buckingham [2019] JRC095

Steelux Holdings Limited v Edmonstone (née Hall) [2005] JLR152

Hervé v H&H Jersey Growers [1994] JLR Notes 5a

Helm Trust Company Limited v Chatfield [2013] (1) JLR Note 13

In Re A Trust and B Trust [2018] JRC068

X Trust Company and Anor v C & Ors [2018] JRC068

Monteagle International Limited v Grocery Market Research Limited [2020] JRC244

A v Minister for Health and Social Services [2021] JRC036

Cunningham v Cunningham [2009] JLR 227

Trico v Buckingham [2019] JRC163

Brakspear & Ors v Nedgroup Trust (Jersey) Limited [2018] JRC121

Monteagle International Limited v Grocery Market Research Limited [2022] JRC051

Service of Process Rules 2019

Maywell Limited v Nautech Services Limited [2014] (2) JLR 527

Helm Trust Company Limited v Chatfield [2013] (1) JLR Note 13

MacFirbhisigh & Anor v C.I. Trustees & Executors Limited & Ors [2014] (1) JLR 244

Re Esteem Settlement [2002] JLR 53

Bagus Investments Ltd v Kastening [2010] JRC 144

Advocate P. C. Sinel for the Plaintiffs..

The Defendant not appearing being excused from appearance.

Advocate D. Evans for the First and the Sixth to Twelfth Third Parties.

Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the Second to Fifth Third Parties.

CONTENTS

		Paras
1.	Introduction	1
2.	Background	2–6
3.	The second to fifth third parties' procedural objections	7–13
4.	Decision on procedural objection	14–20
5.	The application to amend	21–29
6.	Submissions of the plaintiffs	30–39
7.	Submissions of the third parties	40–83
8.	Decision	84–136
9.	Conclusion	137

THE MASTER:

Introduction

1 This judgment contains my decision in respect of an application by the plaintiffs to amend their order of justice and an application by the second to fifth third parties that the plaintiffs are debarred from bringing such an application because the application is in breach of an Act of Court dated 31 ^st August 2021.

Background

2 The general background to the present dispute is set out in my previous judgment in this matter reported at Patel v JTC Trust Company Limited and Ors [2022] JRC 089 dated 11 ^th April 2022. I adopt paragraphs 2 to 15 of that judgment including the definitions for ease of reference. Paragraph 16 of that judgment also refers to the material terms of what is described as the “Family Agreement”.

3 In relation to the relevant procedural history of this matter, paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Act of Court dated 31 ^st August 2021 stated as follows:

• “1. any party wishing to bring interlocutory applications including, for the avoidance of doubt:

  • (a) applications for strike out;

  • (b) applications for summary judgment; and/or

  • (c) applications for specific discovery, shall institute the required summons, together with any supporting evidence required, before 21 October 2021.

• 2. any interlocutory applications issued pursuant to order (1) above (save for any specific discovery or third party discovery application instituted by the Plaintiffs) shall be listed for determination after the conclusion of the mediation (listed for 21 and 22 October 2021);

• 3. any respondent to any interlocutory application issued pursuant to order (1) above (save for in connection with any specific discovery or third party discovery application issued by the Plaintiffs) shall not be required to file any evidence in response to the application (to the extent they are required to do so by any statute or rule of Court) until after the conclusion of the mediation, and shall do so as follows:

  • (a) any affidavit in response to the application(s) shall be filed 21 days after the mediation; and

  • (b) any affidavit in reply shall be filed 14 days after receipt of the affidavit of response; and

  • (c) skeleton arguments and bundles shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the applicable Rules and Practice Directions.

• 4. any application the Plaintiffs' wish to bring for specific discovery of their Third Party discovery shall be issued by 5:00 p.m. Friday, 10th September 2021 and shall be listed at the earliest opportunity with evidence in response being filed:

  • (a) by the respondents to the application by 5:00 p.m. Friday, 17th September 2021; and

  • (b) by the Plaintiffs by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, 21 ^st September 2021.

• 5. if there are no interlocutory applications issued pursuant to paragraph 1 of this order, the Parties within 14 days of conclusion of the mediation listed for 215 and 22” October 2021 (if unsuccessful) shall attend upon the Master's Secretary to fix a date for a further directions hearing…”

4 It is because the plaintiffs are said to be in breach of paragraph 1 of this Act that the second to fifth third parties contend that the plaintiffs cannot now apply to amend their order of justice.

5 On 8 ^th September 2021 I approved a consent order pursuant to which the first and sixth to twelfth third parties provided certain discovery on a voluntary basis for the purposes of a mediation.

6 The hearing leading to my judgment of 11 ^th April 2022 took place on 31 ^st January 2022. The present hearing came about as a result of paragraph 100 of that judgment as follows:

“100. In terms of what happens next, ordinarily I would have required the defendant to particularise its case on unjust enrichment and to plead whether it was seeking any other form of equitable relief. However, I was informed during argument that the plaintiffs intended to amend their order of justice. To avoid a multiplicity of amendments I therefore consider that a directions hearing is required to take place four weeks after this judgment is handed down. I would have required the plaintiffs to be present and by the time of that directions hearing to have provided a draft amended order of justice to the defendant for agreement. However, a draft has now been produced and a summons seeking leave to amend since the hearing of the present applications. If the draft amended order of justice is not agreed at the directions hearing I will either rule on the disputed amendments or set a timetable for a hearing to enable any disputed amendments to be resolved depending on the nature of them and how complex they might be. Consequent upon any approved amendments, I will then set a timetable for the defendant to file an amended answer dealing with any amendments in the order of justice and the matters raised in this judgment. The third parties will then be given an opportunity to file amended answers to the third party claim with an appropriate timetable.”

The second to fifth third parties' procedural objections

7 In relation to this objection, the second to fifth third parties contended that paragraph 1 of the Act of Court of 31 ^st August 2021 required any party to issue any interlocutory application they wished to make before 21 ^st October 2021, with any respondent to any such application not having to take any steps until conclusion of the mediation. Paragraph 3 of the said Act of Court provided for a timetable for the filing of any evidence in response and reply to any application made.

8 Advocate Nicholls' objection was that terms of the order were clear, and it covered any interlocutory application including the present application brought by the plaintiffs. The context for the order was that any issue that was contemplated or should have reasonably been contemplated should have resulted in an application to the Court before 21st October 2021. As the plaintiffs' application to amend was said to have arisen out of the provision of discovery by the defendant, the plaintiffs could have issued their application in accordance with the timetable set out in the Act of Court of 31st August 2021.

9 Advocate Nicholls' criticism of the plaintiffs was that there was no explanation as to why they had not issued their application to amend or at least reserved the right to do so. The parties had a legitimate expectation that any application that could have been brought would have been brought. Yet, the first time the third parties knew of the plaintiffs' application to amend was in December 2021. By this time mediation had clearly failed. Yet the delay was unexplained. In particular, there was no evidence notwithstanding the affidavit of the first plaintiff to explain the plaintiffs' conduct and why a court order had been disregarded.

10 In deciding what order to make it was submitted that I had to balance the interests of justice between whether pleadable claims should be adjudicated upon with the need for finality. As matters stood, the next directions the court could order were production of witness statements and the fixing of trial dates. Allowing amendments at this stage would delay progressing the case to a trial. The application was therefore late. This was why plaintiffs had to justify why they had not brought their application earlier, which they had failed to do.

11 Advocate Sinel argued that it was important to look at the context of the order of 31 ^st August 2021 which was to deal with actual applications that were already pending. The main purpose of the...