Mayo Associates S.A., Troy Associates Ltd and T.T.S. International S.A. v Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd and Touche Ross and Company

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeBailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Myles and Potter:
Judgment Date01 December 1997
Date01 December 1997
ROYAL COURT
Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Myles and Potter:

P.C. Sinel for the plaintiffs;

A.R. Binnington for the first defendant.

Case cited:

(1) Bordeaux Vineries Ltd. v. States Admin. Bd. (1993), 16 Guernsey Law Journal 33, applied.

Additional cases cited by counsel:

Becquet v. Lemprière (1830), P.C. 376.

Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs, [1980] 1 All E.R. 529.

Hinds v. R., [1976] 1 All E.R. 353.

M v. Home Office, [1992] Q.B. 270.

Maynard v. Public Servs. Cttee., 1996 JLR 343.

Pepper v. Hart, [1993] A.C. 593.

R. v. Atkinson, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 425.

R. v. Environment Secy., ex p. Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd., [1996] 3 All E.R. 304.

R. v. Gough, [1993] A.C. 646.

R. v. Inner W. London Coroner, ex p. Dallaglio, [1994] 4 All E.R. 139.

R. v. Queen's County JJ., [1908] 2 I.R. 285.

R. v. Sussex JJ., ex p. McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256.

Shrager v. Basil Dighton Ltd., [1924] 1 K.B. 274.

Courts—récusation—apparent bias—Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear case in which States or other Government body interested—not necessarily conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions

Courts—récusation—apparent bias—Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff not precluded from hearing case argued by advocate previously acting for party bringing action against Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff—no apparent bias if no link between cases

The plaintiffs applied for the Bailiff to disqualify himself from hearing their action against the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendants in the Royal Court following allegations of large-scale financial malpractice, including the misappropriation of commission payments and negligent auditing. Among the allegations made in the course of these and related proceedings were allegations that the Financial Services Department and the Finance & Economics Committee failed adequately to use their regulatory powers to prevent the occurrence of the misappropriations. The Attorney General was also involved in instituting criminal proceedings against certain parties to the plaintiffs' action. The plaintiffs' advocate also represented a party in other unrelated proceedings who had obtained an Order of Justice against the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.

The plaintiffs made the present application, inviting the Bailiff, who was to hear a representation made in the course of the proceedings, to disqualify himself from the hearing on the ground that since he had a judicial, legislative and executive role in the Island, his ultimate control over a number of the parties involved in the proceedings resulted in a conflict of interest on his part. In particular, the plaintiffs submitted that (a) as well as being a member of the States, the Bailiff was de facto Head of State for Jersey and therefore in ultimate control of the regulatory powers wielded by the Finance & Economics Committee and the Financial Services Department; similarly, he was in ultimate control of all executive powers, including those of the Attorney General and for these reasons, it would be inappropriate for him to act judicially in any case in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Eves v Le Main
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 January 1999
    ...in person. A.J. Belhomme for the respondent. Cases cited: (1) Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd., 1997 JLR 304; on appeal, 1998 JLR 173, applied. (2) Perrot v. Le Breton, Royal Ct. (1891), 11 C.R. 29, unreported, applied. (3) Public Servs. Cttee. v. Maynar......
  • Mayo Associates SA v Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 May 1998
    ...proceedings in which the plaintiffs' advocate appeared, so no question of apparent bias could arise. These proceedings are reported at 1997 JLR 304. The court then went on to grant the defendants' representation, on the ground that although the investors were not parties to the action, thei......

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