Guernsey: An Update Of The Royal Court Of Guernsey's Rules On Civil Procedure

Last Updated: 10 June 2016
Article by Mathew Newman

On 1 December 2011, Ogier published a brief summary of the 2007 rules of civil procedure (the Rules) which were intended to simplify, clarify and streamline Guernsey's civil procedure and to give litigants and judges more modern tools to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

The Rules have now been in force for some 8 years and have made a significant difference to the way civil cases are fought and progressed.

Mathew Newman, a partner in Ogier's dispute resolution team, describes below some of the main changes the Rules have made.

The Court's Case Management Powers

Prior to 2007, the Court had limited specific powers for case management. Since the introduction of specific case management powers, the Court has been subject to the overriding objective. Essentially, the Court must manage cases justly, proportionately, fairly and expeditiously and must give effect to rule 1 when it interprets any rule or exercises any power given to it by them.

There has been an increase in the number of interlocutory applications, most specifically strike out and summary judgment applications. This has enabled the Court to dispose of inherently "bad" or very weak claims at an early stage of proceedings, or alternatively, subject to the issue of prescription, highlighted the need for a party to amend its pleadings to ensure the issues are properly clarified, thus saving time and costs.

In addition, the mandatory requirement to apply for a case management conference within 14 days of the pleadings closing has resulted in parties having to think carefully about the time required to complete the tasks of disclosure, witness statements and the attainment of any expert evidence. Due to such timetables, whether by consent or ordered by the Court, parties are getting to grips with the true issues in the case much earlier, which allows a more focused approach and an earlier resolution of key issues.

The requirement for a Pre-trial memorandum and list of issues can be helpful for the parties and the Court in distilling the issues. However, as the parties are required to seek to agree the contents of the same, and file separate memorandums if they cannot do so, it can sometimes complicate matters further.

The imposition of a pre-trial review hearing (if considered required) has also been beneficial, allowing the parties and Court to agree how the time allocated for trial can best be utilised, and dealing with any last minute logistical or procedural issues regarding the availability of witnesses, preparation of chronologies or the requirement for a video link to allow witnesses to give evidence remotely.

Who decides the case at trial

The Rules introduced the requirement to direct whether the case is to be heard by a single judge sitting alone or by a judge sitting with Jurats. There is now therefore a need for more "tactical thinking" by the parties and their lawyers as to the true issues in the case and by which method of trial they may best be served.

Offers to Settle

The Rules introduced for the first time, provisions regarding offers to settle and payments into Court. They are not anywhere near as prescriptive as those set out in the English Civil Procedure Rules, but state that where a payment or offer has been made, the Court shall take the fact, date and acceptance or non-acceptance into account when considering the question of costs. Hence parties now need to be more aware of the consequences of failing to make or accept an offer to settle.

An offer to settle does not have to be monetary to sway the Court as to who gets their costs and on what basis. Before proceedings had commenced in Romain Zaleski v GM Trustees Limited, the Defendant made an offer to assign to the Plaintiff any claims it had as trustee so that he could pursue them at his own cost. This was rejected by the Plaintiff. The Jurats found the terms of the offer were reasonable. As a result, the Court held that this was an aspect of the case which should not have been pursued because the Plaintiff should have realised that what he was being offered was the best outcome he could hope to achieve. The Court held this part of the litigation was needless and unreasonable such that it was a paradigm case for some indemnity costs.

Further, even offers to settle which are not made pursuant to the relevant rule are being taken into account by the Court. In Kevin Michael Bickley v Ronez Limited, the Defendant had made several offers to settle, though not pursuant to the provisions of rule 62. The Plaintiff therefore argued that such offers should not confer any benefit upon the Defendant. The Court held that although such "Calderbank" or "Without Prejudice save as to costs" offers do not carry with them the full consequences of an offer to settle under rule 62, they are nevertheless an important consideration in the exercise of its discretion and is a question of how much weight to attach.

There has also been an increasing trend in England & Wales of the Court examining who is truly "successful" when the issue of costs arises. The Royal Court of Guernsey appears to be wise to this trend, even if not always strictly following it.

In Jefcoate v Spread Trustee Company Limited & Ors, the First Defendant had been ordered to restore the sum of £55,000 to the Lesterps Settlement, of which the Plaintiff was one of the discretionary beneficiaries. Who was the "successful party" was said to be a matter of common sense rather than being judged on technicality. Thus, a small recovery out of a large claim may produce the result that the "successful party" is seen as being the Defendant rather than the Plaintiff. The Judge declined to decide who was the "successful" party but said if a finding had to be made, it would be the Defendants on a common sense view because the Plaintiff (i) recovered only £55,000 out of a claim of £1.9 million and was always in excess of £6.7 million until shortly before trial, (ii) failed on the conspiracy claim and (iii) was found to have joined the Second to Fifth Defendants into the action on a misconceived basis.


The wording of rules 82 and 83 did not change from that set out in the 1989 civil procedure rules. The Court is simply required to make any order it considers "just". However, the Court's approach to the issue of costs has changed significantly since the introduction of the Rules, largely because of the overriding objective in rule 1. Given the increasing costs of litigation, the issue of who recovers their costs of the action, is becoming almost as important financially as who is successful in the case. This is particularly so because there is a large gap between what are known as "recoverable costs" and "indemnity costs".

For many years, the usual order was that the successful party would have their recoverable costs paid by the unsuccessful party (the standard basis). However, where recoverable costs are ordered, there is a cap on the hourly rate which can be recovered. In modern times, this can be significantly lower than the hourly rate the successful party has been paying their own lawyer.

The gap becomes even wider where lawyers in multiple jurisdictions (or "external lawyers") are involved. Oftentimes, English solicitors, either with an existing relationship with a client, or appointed by insurers as "panel solicitors" play a significant role in the preparation of a case. Successful parties will seek to recover those costs in addition to their Guernsey advocates' costs. There has been a mixed approach to such recovery but the leading authority remains the 2008 decision in Ladbrokes Plc –v- Galaxy international Limited which has been applied on several occasions.

In this case, almost half of the fees and disbursements claimed as costs were those of external lawyers. Therefore, the Court considered the principles to be applied when considering whether such costs should be recoverable. It held that the starting point must be with the public interest of Guernsey, which lay in the existence of a well qualified, trained and experienced body of Advocates, capable themselves of handling the great majority of legal proceedings. Furthermore, the people of Guernsey were entitled to expect that

The Court identified examples of what might be considered appropriate and exceptional cases as follows:

  1. In some highly specialist fields of law which arise rarely for decision by the Guernsey Courts, Guernsey Advocates may not have the full range of expertise, such that it may be entirely appropriate to obtain specialist advice from external lawyers which such expertise;
  2. Litigants from outside Guernsey may have long-standing ties with external lawyers such that the use of the same may be reasonable to some extent to ensure the existing knowledge held by the external lawyers of the client litigants and the facts which underlie the disputes are made available to Guernsey Advocates. However, there can be no justification for duplication of costs by the use of both Guernsey Advocates and external lawyers in all or most stages of Guernsey proceedings;
  3. Guernsey proceedings frequently involve the consideration of principles of the laws of other jurisdictions. In such cases, it may be reasonable for help to be sought from external lawyers in establishing what those principles are and the costs of such research would be allowed. However, this would only be allowed where that research could not be readily carried out by the Guernsey Advocates' firm as internet resources relating to the main common law jurisdictions has made the task of researching such issues much easier for Guernsey Advocates;
  4. Often the cheapest and speediest way of reaching the heart of a problem involving complex facts and law it by taking the advice of the best lawyer or lawyers available, for example, a Queen' Counsel or barrister in England and this is likely to be recoverable;
  5. In cases involving large numbers of documents Guernsey Advocates may have to obtain help from large firms elsewhere in the management of the document base, where such management is beyond, or would place an undue burden on, the resources of the Guernsey firm.

The Royal Court applied the Ladbrokes principles recently in Raymond Anthony Dobson Broadhead –v- Spread Trustee Company Limited & Ors. There, the defendants sought the costs of instructing an English QC on the basis this was a factually complex claim and interpretation of section 76(2) of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2009 (the "Trusts Law") was required for the first time, such that knowledge and understanding of the English law on similar concepts was central. This argument was rejected. The Court held this was "a totally Guernsey case". It was litigated between Guernsey residents about Guernsey Trusts, with Guernsey trustees, and applying Guernsey trust law and legislation. Further, the only point of any novelty was the application of section 76(2) of the Trusts Law, which was a purely Guernsey point and fell to be interpreted in the context of the Guernsey law of prescription, which was different from the English law of limitation. It was said that the appropriate research into English law was well within the capabilities of a competent Guernsey lawyer.

The Court held that the test for allowing external lawyers' fees was not whether their work contributed to the ideas, cogency or elegance of the arguments put forward by the party seeking those costs but whether it was necessary for them to instruct lawyers outside Guernsey for the purpose of conducting the case with proper professional competence, having regard to its nature, content and all the circumstances,

In the event the fees of external lawyers are permitted, it is unlikely they will be permitted at rates higher than those allowed for Guernsey Advocates and their employees, except in the relatively rare cases where it can clearly be seen to be reasonable.

However, even in the event the Court is minded, as a matter of principle, to permit the recovery of external lawyers costs (which has been seen in some recent decisions), in practice, a bright light is shined on such costs in any taxation hearing, usually resulting in them being discounted heavily.

Since the introduction of the Rules, there has been an increasing trend of successful parties applying for and obtaining costs on the indemnity basis, even if only partially. As above, this appears to be because the Court is undertaking a much closer examination of the way in which actions are being conducted to ensure that justice prevails.

Particularly noticeable is the Court seeking to strike a balance between the prima facie rule that costs "follow the event" and an "issue based" approach, whereby the Court has regard to relative success on individual issues or aspects of the individual case. This often results in a percentage of costs being awarded as opposed to 100%.

In Shaham v Lloyds TSB Offshore Treasury Limited, it was held that an issue-based approach to costs was appropriate because the intervenor had not succeeded on all the points pleaded but time had been spent preparing to deal with them. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff should pay 80% of the intervenor's costs on the recoverable basis.


Parties are required to help the Court further the overriding objective. As can be seen from the above, it is now more important than ever to consider carefully how to conduct litigation, whether to make or accept an offer to settle and the consequences both may have upon the increasingly important issue of costs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.