W -v- Jersey Financial Services Commission

On 23 rd January, 2015, the Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant ("W") against the decision of the Master given on 13 th October, 2014, to decline to make certain orders for disclosure against the respondent ("the Commission") for the reasons set out in its judgment of that date ( W-v-Jersey Financial Services Commission [2015] JRC 017 ). The Commission now applies for its costs in relation to that appeal on the indemnity basis.

Advocate Lacey for the Commission submitted by way of general background that the Commission is a public body bound to manage its financial resources responsibly. In this regard, it is responsible in the context of an administrative appeal to obtain costs orders on the appropriate basis whenever it is reasonable to do so. The Commission is not a private litigant with vast financial resources with which to do as it pleases.

During the appeal hearing, Advocate Sinel, for W, informed me that he was in possession of three disks of data that had been received from the joint liquidators of the trust company concerned ("the trust company") which his firm was starting to analyse (paragraph 28 of the judgement). The Commission was unaware that W had obtained information from the joint liquidators and immediately after the appeal hearing made inquiry of the joint liquidators as to what had been disclosed.

It transpired that Sinels had written to the joint liquidators on 20 th November, 2014, requesting access to W's email correspondence (sent and received) during his time as a director of the trust company. That was provided to Sinels on 26 th November, 2014, by way of three disks. The receipt signed by Sinels confirmed that they contained the "inbox" of W. The joint liquidators had charged Sinels £150 for this exercise. The joint liquidators also confirmed that Sinels had been given access to the minutes of the trust company during the period that W was a director.

An additional complaint made by W in the appeal was that the Commission should have been ordered by the Master to disclose copies of all of the trust company minutes held by it. The Commission's position was that it had made disclosure of minutes during the course of its investigation, yet no disclosure or mention was made to the Court or to the Commission during the appeal that the joint liquidators had permitted Sinels full access to the trust company minute books throughout the period that W was a director.