In the matter of the Amy Tutelles

The Hon. Michael Beloff, Q.C., President; Dame Heather Steel, D.B.E., and; Miss Clare Montgomery, Q.C.

Application concerning costs for Mr Barnett from actions in the Royal Court brought after the substantive appeal.

This is the judgment of the Court setting out the reasons for a costs order made against Mr Sinel on 28 th July 2011

The Court gave judgment in Amy v Amy on 27 th July, 2011 (to which reference can be made for the background) and dealt with a number of consequential matters arising out of it. On 28 th July, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the Court had to sit again in order to hear an application from Mr Sinel on behalf of Mr Barnett seeking an order for costs in his favour of and relating to the hearing before the Commissioner whose judgment of 24 th February, 2011 was the subject of the substantive appeal. Costs on that occasion had been reserved.

Mr Sinel based his application on the fact that Mr Barnett (although not in form a party to the appeal) had been the beneficiary of the conditional lifting by this Court of a caveat imposed by the Bailiff and not removed by the Commissioner. He explained that he made the application to us and not the Commissioner because the latter has now retired from judicial office.