In the case of the First Defendant, Mr Robinson raised with us certain matters concerning, for example, the cancellation of the agreement and the fact that apparently there is mentioned in the agreement no question of payment. We felt that these were interesting points which may, in due course, lead to him making a striking out application but they are certainly not fatal, in our view, to the application made by the Plaintiff and granted by the Greffier.
We are able to hold that, on the face of the Order of Justice, and the affidavit of Mr Hoy, there is a serious issue to be tried and a good arguable case. There is sufficient, in our view, on the papers before us to show that the Plaintiff makes a proprietary claim to the monies that it says it has lost and the First Defendant is, in our view on the face of it, in a contractual arrangement with the Plaintiff. He is a director and in fact owns half of the Second Defendant. We would go further and say that the Second Defendant, albeit in Maine (USA), has in our view sufficient connection with the funds to enable the Royal Court to exercise its discretion, should that be necessary, to make Jersey the appropriate forum.
We accordingly uphold the Greffiers decision to allow the Plaintiff to serve out of the jurisdiction on the two Defendants, but the secondary matter, of course, is stayed pending a further application from the parties.
Authorities
Porter -v- Freudenberg [1915] 1 KB 857 at 889
The Golden Mariner [1990] 2 Lloyds Re. 215
Gurtner -v- Circuit [1968] 1 All ER 328
Ghana Commercial Bank -v- C & Ors. (3 March 1997) TLR
Service of Process (Jersey) Rules, 1994