New Law Made On Enforcing Judgments In Jersey

The recent judgment of Jersey's Royal Court in

Brunei Investment Agency and Bandone v Fidelis and

others [2008] JRC 152 has significantly extended its

inherent jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgements in Jersey.

Proceedings were brought in Jersey by the Brunei Investment

Authority ("BIA") to enforce aspects of an order made by

the Bruneian Courts against Prince Jefri Bolkiah ("Prince

Jefri"), the youngest brother of the Sultan of Brunei.

The BIA originally commenced proceedings against Prince Jefri in

the Courts of Brunei in 2000. It alleged both misappropriation and

misapplication of several billion US dollars of state funds by

Prince Jefri whilst he occupied governmental office. However the

BIA and Prince Jefri reached a settlement prior to the matter being

heard before the courts in May 2000. Subsequently Prince Jefri

refused to comply with certain terms of the settlement and it was

necessary for the BIA to apply to the Bruneian Courts for

enforcement of the settlement agreement.

Prince Jefri was ordered by the High Court of Brunei in 2006 to

perform his obligations under the settlement agreement (the

"Bruneian Judgment"). He appealed the Bruneian Judgment

and the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Privy Council

sitting as the appellate Court of Brunei. It was then necessary for

the BIA to engage in enforcement litigation across the globe

against various assets which he had acquired. As the settlement

agreement included obligations to transfer shares in certain Jersey

companies to the BIA, litigation in Jersey was necessary and it was

this aspect which formed the subject matter of the Jersey

proceedings.

Principles Of Comity

Whilst the precise terms of the BIA's application sought

recognition of the Bruneian Judgement pursuant to the principles of

comity, the court identified that the real issue before it was in

fact,

"whether the court should make the orders requested

with or without reconsidering the merits."

The court acknowledged that the Judgements (Reciprocal

Enforcement) (Jersey) Law 1960 was limited in application

to England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man

and Guernsey. The court was therefore concerned with its inherent

jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgements.

The court noted that in the area of private international law,

regard would be given to the English common law position. Dicey,

Morris and Collins, The Conflict of Laws ("Dicey") is the

principle authority on this area. In particular Rule 35...