Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/111

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th April, 1994

 

Before: The Bailiff, and Jurats

Bonn and Vibert.

 

                                                     

 

 

Between                              Elizabeth Lou Naranjo, former wife of

                                                            John William Dick.                                               Plaintiff

 

And                                                     John William Dick.                                           Defendant

 

 

Application by the Defendant for an Order discharging the Saisie on the ground that

an interim  maintenance order made by a Californian Court had been fraudulently

obtained by the Plaintiff.

 

 

          This Judgment, delivered on 29^th April, 1994, was not distributed at the time in the Jersey Unreported series.

 

          As it has been referred to in subsequent Judgments and inquiries have since been made about it by Members of the Bar, it has been decided to distribute it now in (2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000/111

2 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th April, 1994

 

Before: The Bailiff, and Jurats

Bonn and Vibert.

 

                                                     

 

 

Between                              Elizabeth Lou Naranjo, former wife of

                                                            John William Dick.                                               Plaintiff

 

And                                                     John William Dick.                                           Defendant

 

 

Application by the Defendant for an Order discharging the Saisie on the ground that

an interim  maintenance order made by a Californian Court had been fraudulently

obtained by the Plaintiff.

 

 

Advocate D.F. Le Quesne for the Defendant

Advocate C.R de J. Renouf for the Plaintiff.

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.               The Saisie on which this case is founded was obtained because of the non-payment of money ordered to be paid to Mrs Dick by a Californian Judge,  pendente lite.

 

2.               It is quite true that that matter went to the Court of Appeal on 26^th April, 1993, and to the Supreme Court on 26^th August, 1993.  If the information which has been laid before us today by Mr Le Quesne had been before the Judge in California  - that information being that (contrary to the testimony of Mr. Daniels, then before him, and to some extent to the earlier evidence on affidavit of Mrs. Dick)  she was receiving money from Mr Daniels - whether by loan or gift is immaterial - we are unable to say that that is one of the accepted requirements before an order of that sort is made.

 

3.               We do not need to make any further comment on his finding about Mr Dick's ability to pay; we have already expressed ourselves in further hearing.  That he has some ability to pay something to his former wife is apparent from the fact that he has paid $10,000 a month from January of this year - only four payments.

 

4.               We have found that it does not follow that the Judge would have made his order; however, we make no finding, at this stage, as to whether there was fraud or error or a simple mistake made before him.  We think it is unnecessary because the very question of fraud is in fact raising the substantive action, and it maybe that the substantive action may now fail or disappear if you get the Saisie.  I do not know.  There are important matters of principle on appeal, and it may be that the question will  not get any further at this stage;  that is entirely up to Counsel.

 

5.               As far as we are concerned, we accept Mr Le Quesne's argument that we should lift the Saisie  because there is certainly an arguable case that the Plaintiff's claim in Jersey will fail - she has already tried to obtain summary judgment.  Therefore, as requested, the Saisie is lifted.  We note that $10,000 should be paid monthly.  If that payment ceases before the substantive action or the appeal are heard, for whatever reason, it is of course always open to the Plaintiff to come back to Court for a further Saisie based on the failure to pay; but whether this will happen or not we cannot say.

 

No Authorities