W v The Jersey Financial Services Commission

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: J. A. Clyde-Smith
• Judgment Date: 24 July 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] JRC 156A
• Date: 24 July 2015

[2015] JRC 156A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, sitting alone.

W

Appellant

and

The Jersey Financial Services Commission

Respondent

Advocate B. H. Lacey for the Respondent.

No Authorities

Costs judgment — Commission's application for costs.

THE COMMISSIONER:

1 I sat on 16 ^th July, 2015, for the adjourned hearing of the application by the Jersey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) for its costs arising out of its successful appeal against the decision of the Master to stay the substantive appeal of W (“W”).

2 The application first came before me on 2 ^nd July, 2015, and for the reasons set out in my short judgment for the file and parties only was adjourned to be heard on a date to be fixed by Advocate Lacey on behalf of the Commission upon notice to W. I said in that judgment that the Commission's application for costs will proceed on that date unless W files with the Court an affidavit exhibiting a medical report which satisfies the Court that he is unable, through ill health, to give instructions on this matter to Sinels or otherwise unable to attend or be represented. Pursuant to that order, Advocate Lacey fixed 16 ^th July, 2015, for the adjourned hearing and notice was given to W accordingly.

3 The Court has now received an affidavit from Mrs W, the wife of W (“Mrs W”) in which she sets out the recent history of the medical problems that have beset W and she concludes at paragraph 8:–

“The appellant remains in serious poor health such that he has been and is unable to liaise with his lawyers and provide proper instructions in respect of this litigation. As a result Sinels are unable to continue to act for the appellant.”

And at paragraph 10:–

“Upon the evidence produced it can clearly be seen that the appellant is unable through ill-health to give instructions on this matter to Sinels and unable to attend or be represented at the Hearing.”

It would seem from the Meta data extracted from the affidavit that Sinels had involvement in producing the document that became Mrs W's affidavit, although the extent of that involvement is unknown.

4 Attached to the affidavit is a short letter from W's General Practitioner, in which he confirms only that “he is currently not well enough to attend future Court hearings until his symptoms are more stable.” In a lengthier letter of 6 ^th July, 2015, he says this:–

“We understand that this patient is...