The Dispute Resolution Team has the knowledge and expertise to guide clients through the complexities of investigative and court procedures relating to asset recovery, fraud, and insolvency.
We understand that turnaround times can be crucial in effecting asset recovery, and our dedicated and responsive dispute resolution team works extremely hard to achieve the results that matter for our clients. For example, the team recently secured a worldwide freezing order within 24 hours of taking instruction.
We believe in ensuring our clients are empowered to make informed and impactful decisions at each stage of the process, and the firm’s extensive experience before the Jersey Courts allows us to deliver honest assessment of the merits of each instruction and to consistently work towards the best outcomes for our clients.
We have acted on a number of ground-breaking enforcement cases which have shaped Jersey law in relation to issues of disclosure, Mareva relief and Norwich Pharmacal orders.
For example, we recently acted in the ground-breaking Re Z Trusts case concerning two “insolvent” trusts ([2015] JRC 031, 196C and 214). This case defines (1) the duties of trustees dealing with apparently insolvent trusts; (2) the competing rights of creditors and beneficiaries; and (3) the fetters on fiduciaries’ (including protectors’) powers that arise.
We also acted for ENRC in relation to enforcement of a US$65 million judgment debt against a Jersey company. Having secured the debt by way of a worldwide freezing order, we successfully obtained supplemental disclosure of third party agreements to police the injunction, the first case of its kind in Jersey ([2015] JRC 217).
Experiences / Cases
2017-2021] James Dickinson and Guillaume Staal acted for a Jersey law firm in heavily contested proceedings in which the law firm sought recovery of improperly obtained privileged and confidential documents which appeared to have been stolen from its offices. The case was notable as it involved a successful appeal to Jersey’s Court of Appeal in which the law firm ran a novel legal argument to the effect that it (arguably) had a free- standing legal right (which was concurrent with that of its client) to recover the improperly obtained documents. Jersey’s Court of Appeal agreed. ([2018] JCA095). The law firm ultimately secured injunctive relief against all parties and along the way secured (a) an order that the First Defendant be debarred from defending the proceedings for non-payment of costs order ([2019] JRC9096), (b) an order that the trial be held in private ([2019] JRC105) and (c) an order that the First Defendant pay all remaining costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis ([2021] JRC050).