Guernsey Law Reports 2009-10 GLR Note 12
PRENTICE v. GARRARD and MANNING (as administrators of LANDSBANKI GUERNSEY LIMITED) and LLOYDS TSB OFFSHORE LIMITED
ROYAL COURT (Finch, Lieut. Bailiff): August 28th, 2009
Civil Procedure—trial of preliminary issue—factors to be considered
Following substantial losses to her account at Landsbanki, the plaintiff instituted a CHAPS transfer of the remaining funds to another of her accounts. However, the payment did not go through and the moneys remained with Landsbanki, which had by then gone into administration. P thus ranked as a non-preferred creditor; she had received a 30% dividend and was potentially to receive up to 89% of the moneys she had deposited. The plaintiff brought a claim against the first defendants (as administrators of Landsbanki) for the return of the moneys, claiming that they had been unjustly enriched as a result of the failure of the transfer; further, or in the alternative, she claimed that the second defendant had negligently failed to follow her instructions. The first defendants sought a direction that the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendants should be heard separately as a preliminary issue.
Held: The application would fail, as the first defendants had not provided strong enough reasons to depart from the norm of a single trial of all the issues. In deciding whether to hear the plaintiff’s claim in two parts, the court had to exercise its discretion judicially and conduct a balancing exercise, provided that in doing so it acted in accordance with the “overriding objective” of the Royal Court Civil Rules 2007, r.1(1) to deal with cases justly. A key consideration was whether the procedure sought would lead to a likely saving in costs, or whether it would be more likely to lead to increased delay, frustration and expense. In complying with its duty to manage cases actively under r.38 of the 2007 Rules, the court also had to consider whether allowing the trial of the preliminary issue would be proportionate to the complexity of the issue, the sum involved and the financial positions of the parties, including their relative means (Fairhurst v. Siteweld Ltd., Royal Ct., April 28th, 2000, unreported, followed). Neither party was to suffer an unfair advantage or disadvantage (Purdie v. Bailhache & Bailhache, 1989 JLR 111, followed). The plaintiff, a private person who had already suffered considerable financial loss, had done all in her power to recover the moneys and had been obliged, through no fault of her own, to bring an action against two corporate defendants; it would therefore not be just or convenient to order the separation of her claim into two parts.
2010
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2009-10 GLR Note 12