The following are links to cases available regarding the Remise, which show that it has, as far I can see, only ever been applied to a dégrèvement and never to a désastre. I've included a "snippet" of text to illustrate that is the case.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=04-03-18_Barker-v-Myles_and_Ors_053A.htm
The files that Mr Barker required related to the en désastre proceedings on 10th August, 1984, to 13th December, 1984, the files in the dégrèvement proceedings from 11th January, 1985 to 21st March, 1986 and the files of the remise de biens from the 21st March 1986 to the same date in 1987.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2012/12-01-03_Gibbins-v-AG_001.htm
In relation to the present application the Crown accepts that the threshold is passed, that is to say that there has been a change of circumstances; that change has arisen because the property, which I have referred to, has subsequently been taken by Jersey Home Loans Limited on a dégrèvement, an application in February last year by Mr and Mrs Gibbins for a remise de bien having failed
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2010/10-09-14_Representation_of_Mickhael_166A.htm
On Friday 26th February 2010, Dr Mickhael made an application to the Royal Court for the granting of a remise de biens pursuant to the Loi (1839) sur les remises de biens ("the 1839 Law"). The application was accompanied by a sworn schedule of all his property pursuant to Article 1 of the 1839 Law, and, in accordance with Article 2 of that law, the Court appointed Jurats De Veulle and Nicolle to examine the schedule and the application, and report back to the Royal Court as to whether or not a remise was viable. In the interval, the dégrèvement was stayed in accordance with usual practice.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2012/12-12-21_Representation_of_Franco_238.htm
The representor applied to the Court by way of representation on 12th October, 2012, seeking a Remise de Biens on the basis that the value of the property significantly exceeded the liabilities of the representor secured against the property and that an orderly sale of the property would result in a surplus after settlement of such liabilities. The Court stayed the dégrèvement and appointed two Jurats to examine the application and report back to the Court.
The Court therefore granted the Remise de Biens.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2013/13-10-25_In_the_matter_of_Reva_Holdings_Ltd_208.htm
On 7th June, 2013, JHL obtained an Acte Vicomte Chargé d'Ecrire. On 23rd August, 2013, on the application of JHL, the Court pronounced 'L'Adjudication de la Renunciation' of Reva's immovable property and ordered that a dégrèvement should take place. It appointed Mr Pollano and Advocate Temple as attournés.
As already stated, Reva applied on 20th September for a Remise. The supporting affidavit suggested that Reva's assets exceeded its secured liabilities.
Having considered carefully the points put forward by Miss Grant on behalf of Reva, we are not satisfied on the evidence that, if a Remise were to be granted, the sum realised would exceed the secured liabilities and accordingly we decline to order a Remise. The stay on the dégrèvement is therefore lifted and it may now proceed.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2008/08-08-14_Burby-v-Thompson_and_Bertram_133.htm
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=04-03-18_Barker-v-Myles_and_Ors_053A.htm
The files that Mr Barker required related to the en désastre proceedings on 10th August, 1984, to 13th December, 1984, the files in the dégrèvement proceedings from 11th January, 1985 to 21st March, 1986 and the files of the remise de biens from the 21st March 1986 to the same date in 1987.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2012/12-01-03_Gibbins-v-AG_001.htm
In relation to the present application the Crown accepts that the threshold is passed, that is to say that there has been a change of circumstances; that change has arisen because the property, which I have referred to, has subsequently been taken by Jersey Home Loans Limited on a dégrèvement, an application in February last year by Mr and Mrs Gibbins for a remise de bien having failed
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2010/10-09-14_Representation_of_Mickhael_166A.htm
On Friday 26th February 2010, Dr Mickhael made an application to the Royal Court for the granting of a remise de biens pursuant to the Loi (1839) sur les remises de biens ("the 1839 Law"). The application was accompanied by a sworn schedule of all his property pursuant to Article 1 of the 1839 Law, and, in accordance with Article 2 of that law, the Court appointed Jurats De Veulle and Nicolle to examine the schedule and the application, and report back to the Royal Court as to whether or not a remise was viable. In the interval, the dégrèvement was stayed in accordance with usual practice.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2012/12-12-21_Representation_of_Franco_238.htm
The representor applied to the Court by way of representation on 12th October, 2012, seeking a Remise de Biens on the basis that the value of the property significantly exceeded the liabilities of the representor secured against the property and that an orderly sale of the property would result in a surplus after settlement of such liabilities. The Court stayed the dégrèvement and appointed two Jurats to examine the application and report back to the Court.
The Court therefore granted the Remise de Biens.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2013/13-10-25_In_the_matter_of_Reva_Holdings_Ltd_208.htm
On 7th June, 2013, JHL obtained an Acte Vicomte Chargé d'Ecrire. On 23rd August, 2013, on the application of JHL, the Court pronounced 'L'Adjudication de la Renunciation' of Reva's immovable property and ordered that a dégrèvement should take place. It appointed Mr Pollano and Advocate Temple as attournés.
As already stated, Reva applied on 20th September for a Remise. The supporting affidavit suggested that Reva's assets exceeded its secured liabilities.
Having considered carefully the points put forward by Miss Grant on behalf of Reva, we are not satisfied on the evidence that, if a Remise were to be granted, the sum realised would exceed the secured liabilities and accordingly we decline to order a Remise. The stay on the dégrèvement is therefore lifted and it may now proceed.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2008/08-08-14_Burby-v-Thompson_and_Bertram_133.htm
On 29th March the applicants applied for a stay of the dégrèvement proceedings on the grounds that they were considering applying for a Remise de Biens. The Court stayed the dégrèvement proceedings until 7th May or such longer period as might be agreed by consent between the parties. The Act specifically stated that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Attournés were relieved of their responsibility to progress the dégrèvement during the course of the stay.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2008/08-11-27_Burby-v-Thompson_and__Bertram_JCA204.htm
The parties in this Appeal both agree that, when an application to make remise de biens is made, this will stay the dégrèvement proceedings as a matter of customary law despite the fact that no statutory power to stay is spelled out in the 1839 or the 1880 Law. This is confirmed in Le Gros; Traité du droit coutumier de L'ile de Jersey, page 371.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=1998_103.htm
The property in question, "Les Buttes," was owned by the Bower family, and unfortunately at some date prior to 1974, the Appellant's father ran into financial difficulties, and a remise de biens was accorded to him.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=04-03-18_Barker-v-Myles_and_Ors_053A.htm
The files that Mr Barker required related to the en désastre proceedings on 10th August, 1984, to 13th December, 1984, the files in the dégrèvement proceedings from 11th January, 1985 to 21st March, 1986 and the files of the remise de biens from the 21st March 1986 to the same date in 1987.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2006/06-03-23_Snell-v-Beadle_046.htm
On 22nd July 1994, Mrs Bell took judgment against Mr Snell in respect of her loan. The sum involved was £76,800 plus interest. Faced with two judgments and the risk of one or other of them being enforced by dégrèvement (in which event he could have lost the equity in the relevant property(ies)) Mr Snell applied for a Remise de Biens on 5th August 1994, which application was granted on 26th August.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2006/06-11-16_Snell-v-Beadle_JCA164.htm
On 22nd July 1994, Mrs Bell took judgment against Mr Snell in respect of her loan. The sum involved was £76,800 plus interest. Faced with two judgments and the risk of one or other of them being enforced by dégrèvement (in which event he could have lost the equity in the relevant property) Mr Snell applied for a Remise de Biens on 5th August 1994.
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2007/07-12-04_Ansbacher-v-HSBC_Bank_PLC_JCA228.htm
Advocate Thompson's speculations as to whether and when a dégrèvement would be appropriate, and as to the choice between a désastre, a remise de biens and a dégrèvement do not seem to me to overcome these hurdles.
This was unnecessary and inappropriate, and not required to enable Ansbacher to proceed to a Vicomte chargé d'écrire, and thence to a dégrèvement
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/JerseyLawReview/Oct97/case_summaries.aspx
Sparta Investments Ltd. and others v Superseconds Ltd. CA: (Collins, Nutting, and Sumption JJA) April 11th 1997 unreported.
The first and second appellants in October 1995 had sought and obtained a remise de biens which was for a term of six months. On 7th June 1996, having concluded that the combined estate of the debtor and guarantors could not be sold for a sum sufficient to satisfy the secured charges on the real property of the appellants, the Autorisés sought and were granted a discharge of the remise de biens, The Royal Court held that the discharge of the remise de biens gave rise to a general cession of the appellants the cession having been conditional until the failure of the remise de biens.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment