A long-running Jersey fraud case illustrates the difficult task that the Channel Island courts sometimes have in comparing and distinguishing between developed principles of English law and foundational elements of the islands' customary law. The case tackles two Jersey law 'hot potatoes': the question of the rights between wrongdoers to claim an indemnity or contribution outside the scope of the limited statutory scheme between joint tortfeasors and the extent and nature of the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Jersey law.
The Jersey Court of Appeal recently handed down a long-awaited judgment in the Z Trusts case. The decision considers important questions regarding the equitable rights of former trustees and whether those rights have priority over the rights of other claimants to the assets of a trust (including successor trustees) whose liabilities exceed its assets. As such, trustees must consider the practical implications of this judgment and whether and how they should be mitigated.
The Jersey Royal Court recently ruled on the extent of its powers to restrict a party that withdraws proceedings to start afresh in a judgment that considered, for the first time, the implications of a 2014 English Court of Appeal decision on the public interest in there being finality in litigation. This is an important decision for maintaining the public interest in the finality of litigation and the efficient administration of justice.
In Summer 2017 Jersey's Royal Court Rules were amended and 11 new practice directions came into force. These aim to improve access to justice, streamline the civil justice process and, where possible, reduce the risks and costs associated with litigation by encouraging the early resolution of cases to avoid court proceedings.