Jersey: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum


  1. The Jersey Court of Appeal (Leeds United Football Club Limited v Weston and Levi [2012] JCA 083) has confirmed the Royal Court's ruling ([2011] JRC 185) that there is a clear distinction between challenging the jurisdiction of the Jersey court and seeking a stay in favour of a more appropriate forum. Service of an answer or other participation by the defendant in the proceedings is not a bar to a stay. The rule requiring a challenge to jurisdiction to be made within 28 days does not apply to forum challenges.
  2. While in most cases the forum challenge will naturally be made at the outset, there will be instances when a stay might justifiably be sought later in the proceedings; for example, a later change of circumstances. Leeds v Weston and Levi confirms that there can still be a forum challenge even when some steps have already been taken in the proceedings by the defendant seeking a stay. This is different from the position in relation to challenging jurisdiction.
  3. The distinction between challenging jurisdiction and seeking an alternative forum has not always been fully appreciated or understood, either in Jersey or in England and Wales. Leeds v Weston and Levi brings a clarity which is to be welcomed.


  1. It is well established that the Royal Court has jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings when satisfied that "there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice." This long-held principle of English law was most recently approved in the Jersey Court of Appeal in Durant v Brazil [2010] JCA 214.
  2. Where there is a clearly more appropriate forum the court will order a stay unless in the circumstances justice requires that a stay should nevertheless not be granted (Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Limited [1987] 1 A.C. 460).


  1. The Court of Appeal at paragraphs 13 and 14 of Leeds v Weston and Levi identified the key issue as "the difference between a plea of no jurisdiction and a challenge to forum. The first is a matter of law and falls to be determined by strict application of the relevant legal rules. For example legal rules are applied to determine whether or not a party, who would otherwise not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Jersey courts, is to be held to have submitted to it. By contrast, a forum challenge falls to be exercised in the exercise of the court's equitable jurisdiction." The Court held that factors such as the degree of a party's participation in the proceedings or the timing of the challenge "may be relevant in determining how best the ends of justice may be served, but they cannot operate as an absolute bar to an application for a stay."


  1. The plaintiff, which owns the English football club of the same name and is beneficially owned by a Mr Ken Bates, had been pursuing a debt claim in the Royal Court against a Jersey company, trading as AdMatch ("the first action"), for some five years before deciding to bring a separate claim in December 2010 ("the second action"). The second action made allegations against the defendants in connection with the subject-matter of the first action. It claimed inter alia the plaintiffs' costs relating to the first action.
  2. In the first action AdMatch was not represented by lawyers but by its beneficial owner and director, Mr Weston. He was one of the two defendants in the second action. In the second action the defendants were represented by Baker & Partners, who were first instructed in mid February 2011.
  3. In the second action there could be no serious challenge to the jurisdiction of the Royal Court, as Mr Weston is a Jersey resident. No initial challenge was made to the choice of Jersey as forum. However Baker & Partners wrote to the plaintiffs saying that the choice of forum for both actions was wrong, but that because the first action was ongoing and had been litigated in Jersey it was accepted that it would be more convenient for the second action to be tried in the same forum. Three weeks later, an answer was served on behalf of both defendants in the second action, which pleaded to the Order of Justice and made the same point about the choice of forum.
  4. Matters changed when the first action came to an abrupt end. AdMatch failed to comply with an unless order, and after an unsuccessful attempt to appeal the unless order and an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Royal Court not to enforce it, a default judgment was finally entered against AdMatch on 19 May 2011. The defendants in the second action then took the view that the circumstances which had rendered it more convenient to try the second action in Jersey no longer applied.
  5. The defendants promptly brought an application for a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens in favour of England. The main grounds for asserting that England was clearly a more appropriate forum were that most of the likely witnesses and documents were in England, and all but one of the parties were resident in England.
  6. The plaintiff disputed that England was a more convenient forum on a wide range of grounds including applicable law and the fact that a lot of work had already been carried out by its Jersey lawyers, Sinels, the cost of which would be wasted. But they also argued that the application could not be made as a matter of law, because it was too late.
  7. This latter objection had two bases: first, that an answer had been filed, which was a bar to challenging forum; and second, that the forum application was made more than 28 days after the date when the case was placed on the pending list, and thus was barred by virtue of Royal Court Rule 6/7(3).


  1. As to whether service of an answer is a bar to challenging forum, the Defendants relied successfully on two recent Jersey Court of Appeal decisions: Jaiswal v Jaiswal [2007] JLR 305 and Durant v Brazil [2010] JCA 214. In Jaiswal, Beloff JA said at paragraph 78 that even if the defendant in that case had

    "... dropped his guard and failed to continue to protest the jurisdiction of the Royal Court, at most this would, in our view, prevent him from contending that the Royal Court was not an appropriate (or, at any rate, available) forum. It would not prevent him from contending that another forum was more appropriate."
  2. This distinction, between the questions (i) whether the court has jurisdiction to deal with a case at all and (ii) whether another court which also has jurisdiction is a more appropriate forum to hear the case, was adopted by Sir Philip Bailhache sitting as a single judge in Durant. He rejected an argument that the defendants in that case were barred from arguing forum because they had filed an answer:

    "Even if, by failing to reserve the position, the applicants could be prevented from contending that the Royal Court was not an appropriate forum, they are not disentitled from contending that Brazil is the more suitable forum for the ends of justice."
  3. The plaintiffs relied on obiter dicta in an earlier Jersey Court of Appeal decision, Wright v Rockway Ltd and others [1994] JLR 321, and obiter dicta of the Privy Council in Gheewala v Compendium Trust Co Ltd [2003] JLR 621 as authority for the proposition that serving an answer was a bar to a stay. In Wright v Rockway, Collins JA referred in the context of a stay application to the "insurmountable difficulty" that Rockway had "already served an answer and thus accepted the jurisdiction of the court." As the Royal Court noted, however, this was obiter, as it did not need to be decided in that case and had not been the subject of argument; indeed Rockway was not the defendant which was seeking a stay in any event. The Court of Appeal held (at 16) that the words relied on from Wright v Rockway were inconsistent with the principles on which the court's powers to grant a stay rest, and should not be followed.
  4. In Gheewala, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe observed in passing that no party had "suggested that a defendant's failure to apply for an order setting aside service out disentitled him from applying for a stay (provided, of course, that he had not taken further active steps in the proceedings)." The Court of Appeal, however, agreed with the Royal Court's view in the Royal Court that this was merely an aside and there was no indication that the point had been argued.

RULE 6/7(3)

  1. As for the argument based on Rule 6/7(3), which relates to jurisdiction disputes, both the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff's argument that it also applies to forum disputes. This was because the party making a forum challenge may not necessarily dispute the jurisdiction of the court; he may accept (as in this present case) that the court has jurisdiction but assert that the interests of justice and the parties militate in favour of a different forum. The Royal Court observed that if it had been intended that Rule 6/7(3) should apply to forum challenges it could easily have been drafted to say so.
  2. The Court of Appeal thus concluded that there was no legal bar to the application for a stay in this case and found that the Royal Court (being fully familiar with the background to both the first and the second actions) had been entitled to conclude that there had been a "significant change of circumstances on which the defendants were entitled to rely" once the first action came to an end. It endorsed the Royal Court's view that since the second action had not by that stage advanced beyond the service of an answer, a trivial amendment by consent and a request for further and better particulars, it was not unjust to stay the proceedings in favour of England. It also agreed that, on the facts of this case, England was clearly the most appropriate forum and thus dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal on the merits.
  3. This decision cannot be seen as a green light to delay forum challenges indefinitely. However where there is a good reason why the challenge is not made at the outset, and where injustice will not be caused by a stay, the court's discretion may still be exercised in favour of a stay some way into the proceedings.

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.