BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Crudetti and Bocchi v Chase Bank [2001] JRC 247 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_247.html Cite as: [2001] JRC 247 |
||
[New search] [Help]
2001/247
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
13th December 2001
|
Before: |
P.R. Le Cras, Esq., Commissioner, sitting alone.
|
|
Between |
Anna Crudetti |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
|
And |
Valera Bocchi |
Second Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
|
And |
Giorgio Bocchi |
Third Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
|
And |
Chase Bank and Trust Company (C.I.) Ltd |
Defendant |
|
|
|
|
|
And |
Renato Bocchi |
Third Party |
|
|
|
|
Application by the Third Party for an Order setting aside an Order of the Master of 18th December, 2000, granting leave to the Defendant to convene the Third Party to the action.
Advocate F.B. Robertson for the Third Party.
Advocate T.J. Le Cocq for the Defendant.
judgment
theCOMMISSIONER:
1. This is an application by the Third Party, Mr Renato Bocchi, to have the action against him stayed in Jersey and to have the proceedings against him heard in Italy.
2. The Defendants' have been actioned by members of Mr Renato Bocchi's family for what may in general be described as breaches of trust in Jersey, and the proceedings are due to be set down and heard here. The Defendants do not dispute the jurisdiction. What they do seek to say, however, is that if they have any liability they should be indemnified by Mr Renato Bocchi. To this end they commenced proceedings against him in Italy, and then some 6 months later in Jersey, by way of a third party notice.
3. Almost as soon as this hearing began, it became apparent that there was at least one area of conflict in Italian law where the parties disagreed, and where it was apparent - the point being of considerable importance to Mr Renato Bocchi - that evidence would have to be heard and that an adjournment to hear this would be necessary.
4. That said, it appeared to the Court that, as the proceedings - that is the main action and the third party proceedings - are inter-related, although the Plaintiffs' seek damages only from the Defendants, they should be given the opportunity to be heard, and the Court orders that they should be convened for the next hearing in order that they make observations if they wish to do so.
5. Given the possibility that as things stand, the main action may be heard before the Third Party Proceedings, it is possible that the Defendants may have faced the prospect of two related proceedings which may cover much the same ground taking place in close succession.
6. There has been delay in bringing this application, but for reasons given to the Court by Counsel the Court accepts that no blame for this lies at the door of either party today. The Court therefore reserves to itself the powers to make Orders with regard to both the main action and the Third Party Proceedings, and all applications therefore, must come before the Court and be served on all the parties. In particular this Order is to apply for any application for the hearing date for the main action.
7. Finally, from the comments of Counsel it would seem that at least 4 days should be set aside for hearing the present summons, including, as it must, witnesses as to Italian law. There will be liberty to apply, and the costs of today's hearing are reserved.
