Crociani & Ors v Crociani & Ors (Jersey)

Summary

Michaelmas Term
[2014] UKPC 40
Privy Council Appeal No 0061 of 2014

JUDGMENT Crociani and others (Appellants) v Crociani and others (Respondents)
and
Princess Camilla de Bourbon des Deux Siciles (Intervener)
From the Court of Appeal of the Bailiwick of Jersey

before

Lord Neuberger
Lord Mance
Lord Reed
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY
LORD NEUBERGER

ON

Appellants David Brownbill QC John Kelleher Edward Cumming Daniel Warents (Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP)		Respondents Simon Taube QC Eason Rajah QC Anthony Robinson (Instructed by Harcus Sinclair)

		Intervener Nicholas Le Poidevin QC Nuno Santos-Costa (Instructed by Collas Crill)

LORD NEUBERGER:

Background

The principal issue on this appeal is whether proceedings ("the Proceedings") brought in the Royal Court of Jersey by Cristiana Crociani ("Cristiana") and others ("the respondents") against her mother Edoarda Crociani ("Mme Crociani") and others ("the appellants") should be stayed on the ground that they were brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in clause 12 of a Trust Deed made on 24 December 1987 ("the 1987 Deed"). The determination of this issue involves resolving the following disputes, namely (i) (a) whether clause 12 of the 1987 Deed ("clause 12") is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and (b) if so, in the events which have happened, whether it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Mauritius in respect of the claims made in the Proceedings, and (ii) if so, whether the Proceedings should be stayed. The appellants contend that the answer to these questions is yes, and the respondents argue that it is no.

The Royal Court (Commissioner Clyde-Smith, and Jurats Fisher and Blampied) held that (i) clause 12 did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Mauritian courts in this case as most of the claims were based on allegations against Jersey trustees and were governed by Jersey law, but that (ii) if the clause conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Mauritian courts in respect of the claims, the Proceedings should nonetheless be permitted to proceed in Jersey. The Jersey Court of Appeal (the Hon Michael Beloff QC, Sir John Nutting Bt QC, and Mr John Martin QC) (i) considered that clause 12 was not concerned with jurisdiction, but went on to hold (ii) that, even if the clause did accord exclusive jurisdiction to the Mauritian courts, the Royal Court had reached a conclusion which it was entitled to reach, and with which the Court of Appeal should not interfere. Accordingly, they dismissed the appellants' appeal.

With the permission of the Court of Appeal, the appellants now appeal to Her Majesty. In order for their appeal to succeed, they have to establish each of the following points. First, on issue (i) that (a) contrary to the view of the Court of Appeal, and to the holding of the Royal Court, clause 12 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and (b) it confers exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the Proceedings on the Mauritian courts. Secondly, on issue (ii),…