The recent decisions of the Royal Court of Jersey illustrate that the Jersey court will assist Plaintiffs enforcing interim freezing, third party disclosure and third party payment orders against the assets of a Defendant and against the assets of entities owned by a Defendant on the basis of comity.

In the recent case the Petitioner issued divorce proceedings in the Family Division of the High Court in England. The Petitioner then obtained a Freezing Order in the English High Court in October 2001 prohibiting the removal or disposal of assets up to £6.4 million with the usual exceptions. The Respondents assets listed in the Freezing Order included certain assets known to in be Jersey. The Respondent was believed to be residing abroad.

Jersey Advocates Voisin & Co and in particular Dexter Flynn and Ashley Hoy, on instructions from Michael Reason solicitors of London and John Mc Linden of counsel obtained an Order of Justice from the Jersey Bailiff freezing certain assets in Jersey along with disclosure orders.

The English High Court subsequently amended its Freezing Order permitting monthly payments of interim maintenance to be paid from the accounts in Jersey in the Respondents name. The Respondents bank being Jersey registered would not act on the English court's order for the payment of interim maintenance or the variation of the interim Freezing Order. The Petitioner was however able to return to the Jersey Court to have the amended English order reflected in an amended Jersey Order in Aid which the Jersey bank would act upon.

The Jersey Court ordered that as a consequence of the Respondent not appearing in the Jersey proceedings the Jersey Attorney General should appear as "partie publique" to make submissions on the Petitioners applications. The Respondent was very wealthy, was in contempt of orders of the English and Jersey courts, was attempting to conceal his assets and was failing to maintain his wife. The marriage was one of a lengthy duration.

The question decided by the Jersey Court was whether it had the power to extend the orders sought by the Petitioner pursuant to the rules of comity or whether the Petitioner should invoke the reciprocal mutual enforcement law.

The decisions reproduced on the Jersey Courts web site establish that the Royal Court of Jersey will assist English Plaintiffs enforcing third party freezing, disclosure and payment orders in Jersey on the basis of comity. Whether the doctrine of comity will be extended in Jersey to assist the courts of other jurisdictions remains to be seen

The Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Isle of Man) Act 1968 provides that a final judgement capable of execution given by a superior court in certain jurisdictions will subject to the terms of the act be recognised and enforced by the Isle of Man Courts without re-examination of the merits. The designated jurisdictions whose superior court judgements will be recognised at the United Kingdom, Isreal, Suriname, Jersey and Guernsey.

Any judgement (and presumably any interim order such as a freezing order) given by a court of a jurisdiction not so designated would not be recognised or enforceable in the Isle of Man and any action brought in the Isle of Man would require re-trial or examination of the merits of the case.

Michael Reason July, 02