Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/215

2 pages.

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3^rd November, 2000

 

Before:           M.C .St.J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, assisted by Jurats Rumfitt and Allo

 

 

 

 

                                In the matter of Article 48 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre)(Jersey) Law 1990, as amended.

 

                                And in the matter of an Order in Aid in respect of the bankruptcy of Howard Fyfe Harper (the Bankrupt)

 

                                Representation of Andrew David Dick, appointed Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Bankrupt and of Monika Ursula Harper by Order of the Secretary of State, dated 16^th November, 1999.

 

                                Application for an Order in Aid.

 

                                                                                                   

                                     Advocate F.B. Robertson for the Representor.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.                  This matter arose as a result of an application by a Trustee in Bankruptcy appointed under the relevant United Kingdom legislation, who had obtained a Letter of Request from the Bankruptcy Court in the High Court of Justice to the Royal Court.  As is often the case the Letter of Request was in fairly wide terms; such letters come from many courts which naturally have very different systems to our own.  Accordingly the letters do not always reflect the correct nature of the orders which this Court may make.  This was shown in the original representation which, in the prayer, did no more than ask that the order appointing the Trustee in Bankruptcy be registered and that he be authorised to do all such things and carry out all such actions as may be specified in the Letter of Request. 

 

2.                  This was a wholly inadequate prayer because, when one looks at the Letter of Request, it is drawn in such wide terms that, for example, it asked us to order that the Trustee in Bankruptcy in Jersey in this particular case should have had all the powers which this Court itself has.  That was a nonsensical application.  We therefore remitted the matter and refused to hear it further.  We ordered that the applicant should consult with the Viscount in order to come up with a better drafted application which paid due regard to the powers available in bankruptcy matters under our legislation.  We now have a suitable application.

 

3.                  What we wish to say is that any application for an Order in Aid under the Bankruptcy legislation should not be brought to the Court until the applicant has consulted with the Viscount's Department with a view to ensuring that the order actually sought in the representation, whilst seeking to achieve the objects of the Letter of Request, is drawn in terms which are suited to our domestic legislation.

 

Mr Robertson, you have an order in the terms of your prayer in its amended form.

 

No Authorities