We have established our Plaintiff client’s 50% interest in a property owning company. We successfully resisted a second jurisdiction challenge brought by the primary defendant (following a previous challenge in 2014). We established the test in Jersey for admitting further evidence post trial but pre judgment ( JRC 190). The trial of the remaining issues (relating to the ownership of loan accounts) took place in June 2016 and judgment will be handed down shortly.
In 2016 the client started to act as a litigant in person and engaged the firm to provide litigation support. The client was represented at a 7 day trial in October and November 2016 by John Machell QC (on a direct access basis) and Adil Mohamedbhai of Serle Court. The client was wholly successful in his claims when judgment was handed down in January 2017, establishing his 50% interest in a partnership and the partnership businesses and securing an order for an account. The accounting procedure is progressing to a hearing in 2018.
Zamin’s disclosure revealed the existence of two suspiciously timed agreements which appeared to dissipate its main asset (a South American mining concession allegedly worth $250m). Zamin refused to supply any detail about the agreements.
We then successfully applied for disclosure of the agreements on behalf of ENRC ( JRC 217), primarily on the ground that the lack of information about the agreements and suspicious timing gave rise to the fear that Zamin was dissipating its assets. The information was needed to police the injunction. This is the first reported case in which the Royal Court has followed the English courts in supporting freezing injunctions by making specific further disclosure orders in relation to the assets of subsidiary companies.
James Gleeson is advising in relation to potential derivative claims on behalf of the BVI company against the majority shareholder. An application to the BVI court for permission to bring proceedings by way of derivative action in Jersey is pending. DWFM Beckman are instructing, in conjunction with Forbes Hare and Hodge Malek QC.
The Group 2 trial took place in June 2014 and spanned five weeks. Judgment was handed down in December 2014. Mr Vilsmeier substantially succeeded in his own claims, was fully successful in defence of the counterclaims and was awarded his costs of the action. The case is the first to consider the basis of relief under Article 212 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 as amended.
A further trial was scheduled for a week in May 2015 relating to a different Jersey holding company with a Jordanian asset (in this case, a petrol station on the main route from Jordan to Syria). The case raised similar allegations in relation to breach of fiduciary duty as against Dr Mohammed Abdel-Haq, and was to have considered the Re Duomatic principle of informed shareholder consent. It also settled prior to trial.