New Guernsey States of Deliberation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Developing Cross-Bailiwick Restructuring Laws: the Guernsey
Developing cross-bailiwick restructuring laws: The Guernsey and Jersey Royal Courts sanction cross-border pooling of assets and liabilities of insolvent companies Publication - 01/04/2020 Overview In decisions delivered on 24 August 2015 and 7 October the Royal Courts of Guernsey Court and Jersey respectively held that where the affairs of two insolvent companies (incorporated in Jersey and Guernsey respectively) are so intermingled that the expense of unravelling them would adversely affect distributions to creditors, it can be appropriate to treat the companies as a single entity. Having concluded that there was no bar in the legislative framework of Guernsey which would prevent such an application and with the interests of creditors firmly to the fore, the Deputy Bailiff of Guernsey granted a proposal by the Joint Liquidators (from Grant Thornton) to consolidate the assets and liabilities of a Guernsey company with the assets and liabilities of a related, but separate company incorporated in Jersey subject to the sanction of the Jersey Court. The Jersey Court subsequently reached a similar conclusion in terms of its jurisdiction to grant a pooling order. This is the first time the Guernsey Court has considered and granted such an order, which has allowed a procedure which, on its face, would appear to contradict basic principles i.e. separate legal personality and that creditors can only share in the assets of the company against which they are entitled to lodge a claim. Acknowledging the inevitable rise of cross-jurisdictional corporate insolvencies, the Guernsey Court confirmed the basic purpose of a liquidation was the realisation of a company’s assets for the benefit of its creditors and held that where there was a solution whereby creditors would receive more than they otherwise would, then common sense dictated that such a solution should find favour with the Court. -
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS 2014 Facts and Figures
ALBANIA ALBANIE ANDORRA ANDORRE ARMENIA ARMÉNIE AUSTRIA AUTRICHE AZERBAIJAN AZERBAÏDJAN BELGIUM BELGIQUE BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE BULGARIA BULGARIE CROATIA CROATIE CYPRUS CHYPRE CZECH REPUBLIC RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE DENMARK DANEMARK ESTONIA ESTONIE FINLAND FINLANDE FRANCE FRANCE GEORGIA GÉORGIE GERMANY ALLEMAGNE GREECE GRÈCE HUNGARY HONGRIE ICELAND ISLANDE IRELAND IRLANDE ITALY ITALIE LATVIA LETTONIE LIECHTENSTEIN LIECHTENSTEIN LITHUANIA LITUANIE LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG MALTA MALTE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA MONACO MONACO MONTENEGRO MONTÉNÉGRO NETHERLANDS PAYS-BAS NORWAY NORVÈGE POLAND POLOGNE PORTUGAL PORTUGAL ROMANIA ROUMANIE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE SAN MARINO SAINT-MARIN SERBIA SERBIE SLOVAK REPUBLIC RÉPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE SLOVENIA SLOVÉNIE SPAIN ESPAGNE SWEDEN SUÈDE SWITZERLAND SUISSE «THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA» «L’EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE» TURKEY TURQUIE UKRAINE UKRAINE UNITED KINGDOM ROYAUME-UNI ALBANIA ALBANIE ANDORRA ANDORRE ARMENIA ARMÉNIE AUSTRIA AUTRICHE AZERBAIJAN AZERBAÏDJAN BELGIUM BELGIQUE BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE BULGARIA BULGARIE CROATIA CROATIE CYPRUS CHYPRE CZECH REPUBLIC RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE DENMARK DANEMARK ESTONIA ESTONIE FINLAND FINLANDE FRANCE FRANCE GEORGIA GÉORGIE GERMANY ALLEMAGNE GREECE GRÈCE HUNGARY HONGRIE ICELAND ISLANDE IRELAND IRLANDE ITALY ITALIE LATVIA LETTONIE LIECHTENSTEIN LIECHTENSTEIN LITHUANIA LITUANIE LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG MALTA MALTE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA MONACO MONACO MONTENEGRO MONTÉNÉGRO NETHERLANDS -
Speakers Conference Report.Qxd
Second Report The Lord Alderdice, The Speaker Report of a Conference for Speakers, Presiding Officers and Clerks of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands Held on Thursday 27 and Friday 28 June 2002 in Parliament Buildings, Belfast Report of a Conference for Speakers, Presiding Officers and Clerks of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands Held on Thursday 27 and Friday 28 June 2002 in Parliament Buildings, Belfast Executive Summary The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Lord Alderdice, invited Speakers, Presiding Officers and Clerks from the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to a conference in Parliament Buildings, Belfast. The aim of the conference was to exchange information on matters of mutual interest, to provide a momentum for the development of inter- parliamentary co-operation and to build on the networks already flourishing at Presiding Officer and official level. The Clerks of the various Parliaments and Assemblies met on Thursday 27 June, prior to the Speakers’/Presiding Officers’ Conference on 28 June. The agenda for the conference was drawn up following consultation with participants. Preparing for elections was identified as one of the key themes and was discussed by both the Clerks’ Forum on 27 June and the meeting of Speakers and Presiding Officers on 28 June. A list of participants is attached at Appendix A. The agendas for both the Clerks’ Forum and the Speakers’/Presiding Officers’ Conference is attached at Appendix B. The records of discussion provide a detailed report on each of the conference sessions. -
Modernizing Government in the Channel Islands: New Political Executives in British Crovvn Dependencies
Modernizing Government in the Channel Islands: New Political Executives in British Crovvn Dependencies Philip Morris* Abstract This article examines recent reforms of internal government arrangements in the Channel Islands jurisdictions of Jersey and Guernsey. These reforms represent the most far-reaching changes in insular government for over half a century in response to concerns over slow and poor-quality decision-making, conflicts of interest, absence of effective accountability mechanisms and external critique of aspects of the Islands' offshore finance sectors, upon which their economies are heavily dependent. The article is structured into three sections. Section I outlines the constitutional position of both jurisdictions, the pressures for reform and the political economy of British offshore finance centres. Section II critically evaluates key features of the new systems and their performances to date. The final part, Section III, highlights key themes including the necessity for external pressure as a trigger for reform, selective/diluted implementation of reform packages and the problem of genuine accountability in small jurisdictions. Keywords: Jersey, Guernsey, governments, reform, offshore, accountability I. Background: Constitutional Context and the Political Economy of British Isles Offshore Finance Centres The Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey are distinct jurisdictions which enjoy a constitutional status that can only be characterized as 'unique'.' They are neither part of the United Kingdom nor colonies: * Independent public law researcher; e-mail: [email protected]. The background work for this article was prepared while the author was Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Stirling. The author expresses his gratitude to those officials of the States Public Libraries in St Helier, Jersey and St Peter Port, Guernsey for their assistance during field trips to the Islands. -
The World's Modern Autonomy Systems
2 The concepT of poliTical auTonomy Thomas Benedikter The World‘s Modern Autonomy Systems Concepts and Experiences of Regional Territorial Autonomy 1 The World’s Modern Autonomy Systems Institute of Minority Rights Concepts and Experiences of Regional Territorial EURAC Research Autonomy Viale Druso/Drususallee 1 I – 39100 Bolzano/Bozen Bozen/Bolzano, 2009 Email: [email protected] This study was written for the European Academy of A second version of this work is available in German Bolzano/Bozen (EURAC; www.eurac.edu), Institute for language: Minority Rights, in the frame of the project Europe- Thomas Benedikter South Asia Exchange on Supranational (Regional) Autonomien der Welt – Eine Einführung in die Policies and Instruments for the Promotion of Human Regionalautonomien der Welt mit vergleichender Rights and the Management of Minority Issues Analyse, ATHESIA, Bozen 2007 (EURASIA-Net) (FP7). ISBN 978-88-8266-479-4 www.athesiabuch.it The first edition of this publication has been released [email protected] in India in 2007 under the title „The World‘s Working Regional Autonomies“ by ANTHEM PRESS, www. This work is dedicated to my father, Alfons Benedikter anthempress.com (born in 1918), who for most of his life gave his all for C-49 Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019, India autonomy and self-determination in South Tyrol. 75-76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK 244 Madison Ave. #116, New York, NY 10016, USA Edited by Copyright © EURAC 2009 This edition is published in collaboration with the Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group GC 45, Sector 3, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, India. -
Sainte Apolline's Chapel St. Saviour's, Guernsey Conservation Plan
Sainte Apolline's Chapel St. Saviour's, Guernsey Conservation Plan DRAFT Ref: 53511.03 December 2003 Wessex Archaeology Ste Apolline’s Chapel St Saviour’s Parish Guernsey Conservation Plan DRAFT Prepared for: States of Guernsey Heritage Committee Castle Cornet St Peter Port Guernsey GY1 1AU By: Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury Wiltshire SP4 6EB In partnership with Carden & Godfrey Architects Environmental Design Associates Ltd AVN Conservation Consultancy & Dr John Mitchell Reference: 53511.03 18th December 2003 © The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited 2003 all rights reserved The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 Ste Apolline’s Chapel, St Saviour’s Parish, Guernsey Conservation Plan CONTENTS CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1 1.1 Project Background ..........................................................................................1 1.2 Aims of the Conservation and Management Plan..........................................1 1.3 Methods..............................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 2:UNDERSTANDING .............................................................................7 2.1 Site Location......................................................................................................7 2.2 Development of the Chapel ..............................................................................7 2.3 The Condition of the -
Review of Financial Regulation in the Crown Dependencies
Review of Financial Regulation in the Crown Dependencies Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty November 1998 Cm 4109-i Part 1 - Main Report £17.85 Cm 4109-ii Part 2 - The Jersey Finance Centre £10.30 Cm 4109-iii Part 3 - The Guernsey Finance Centre £12.60 Cm 4109-iv Part 4 - The Isle of Man Finance Centre £11.40 published by The Stationery Office as Part 1 ISBN 0 10 141092 1 Part 2 ISBN 0 10 141093 X Part 3 ISBN 0 10 141094 8 Part 4 ISBN 0 10 141095 6 Review of Financial Regulation in the Crown Dependencies OFFICE OF THE REVIEW OF FINANCIAL REGULATION IN THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES c/o Home Office 50 Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT Rt Hon Jack Straw MP Home Secretary Home Office 50 Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT 24 October 1998 Dear Home Secretary REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF FINANCIAL REGULATION IN THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES You commissioned me on 20 January 1998 to review with the Island authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man their laws, systems and practices for regulation of their international finance centres, the combating of financial crime and co- operation with other jurisdictions. I have pleasure in submitting my Report with this letter. As explained in Chapter 1, the Report consists of four Parts. Part I presents my own assessment. I take responsibility for what it says. It includes a two-page summary of Principal Issues followed by a full Summary and Main Conclusions and then the Main Report. -
Why Hollingsworth V. Virginia Was Rightly Decided, and Why INS V
Volume 83, Number 5, April 2005 A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia Was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned Seth Barrett Tillman* Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. —U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 The sweeping nature of this obviously ill-considered provision . —Professor Stanley Corwin’s annotated Constitution (1964) The Court, on the day succeeding the [oral] argument, delivered an unanimous opinion, that the [Eleventh] amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens, or subjects, of any foreign state. —Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) All this, of course, leaves us entirely in the dark as to how or why the Court thought it had evaded the clear language of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3. * Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude (2000); University of Chicago, A.B., honors (1984). This Article was written while clerking for the Honorable Mark E. Fuller (M.D. Ala.) and the Honorable William J. -
Constitutional Reform: Information Sources and Reading
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: INFORMATION SOURCES AND READING Contents Constitutional Models .................................................................................. 3 Bailiwick of Guernsey ............................................................................... 3 Bailiwick of Jersey .................................................................................... 3 Isle of Man ................................................................................................ 4 Faroe Islands ............................................................................................ 5 Falkland Islands ........................................................................................ 5 English City Deals ........................................................................................ 5 Scottish Cities Alliance ................................................................................. 6 European Union ........................................................................................... 7 Representation within Europe ................................................................... 7 Examples of Self Governing Regions in the EU ........................................ 7 EU Budget Management .......................................................................... 8 European Court of Justice ........................................................................ 8 EU Single Market – including Directive on Consumer Rights, Universal Postal Service and The Postcode Penalty ............................................... -
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM BRANCH 2008/09 COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM BRANCH 2008/09 COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION UNITED KINGDOM BRANCH Presidents RT HON. BARONESS HAYMAN (Lord Speaker) RT HON. MICHAEL MARTIN MP (Speaker of the House of Commons) Vice-Presidents RT HON. BARONESS BOOTHROYD OF SANDWELL RT HON. GORDON BROWN MP (Prime Minister) RT HON. LORD CARRINGTON KG GCMG CH MC DL RT HON. LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON QC RT HON. LORD HOWE OF ABERAVON CH QC RT HON. LORD HURD OF WESTWELL CH CBE RT HON. DAVID CAMERON MP RT HON. LORD IRVINE OF LAIRG QC RT HON. LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN KT RT HON. LORD OWEN CH RT HON. JACK STRAW MP RT HON. BARONESS THATCHER LG OM FRS Chairman of the UK Branch RT HON. GORDON BROWN MP (Prime Minister) Executive Committee Chair Mr JOHN AUSTIN MP Joint Vice-Chairs RT HON. LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA DL (until 21 July 2008) MR DAVID CLELLAND MP (until 21 July 2008) SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON DL MP (until 21 July 2008) RT HON. JOHN MCFALL MP (from 21 July 2008) MS ANN MCINTOSH MP (from 21 July 2008) BARONESS NORTHOVER (from 21 July 2008) Honorary Treasurer RT HON. SIR JOHN STANLEY MP Members MR JOHN AUSTIN MP (Chair) RT HON. SIR JOHN STANLEY MP (Hon. Treasurer) RT HON. LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA DL RT HON. KEVIN BARRON MP MR HUGH BAYLEY MP DR ROBERTA BLACKMAN-WOODS MP RT HON. GORDON BROWN MP (ex-officio) MR PETER BOTTOMLEY MP RT HON. -
GS Misc 1241 GENERAL SYNOD
GS Misc 1241 GENERAL SYNOD THE REPORT OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY’S COMMISSION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS TO THE WIDER CHURCH OF ENGLAND Summary A draft Measure is before this Synod enabling the attachment of the Channel Islands Deaneries to the Diocese of Salisbury. This is the principal recommendation of an Archbishop’s Commission which reported last October. If agreed, this would enable Order(s) in Council to end the attachment of the Islands to Winchester, and the ad hoc arrangements that have been made for their oversight since 2013. This way forward is supported by the Island Deaneries and the Diocese of Salisbury. Summary of the Commission’s Report The Archbishop’s Commission on the relationship of the Channel Islands to the wider Church of England was set up in June 2018 following the breakdown between the Islands and the Bishop of Winchester (the Rt Revd Tim Dakin) over the suspension of the then Dean of Jersey (the Very Revd Bob Key) in March 2013 in relation to the handling of a safeguarding matter. The former Bishop of London, Lord Chartres, chaired the Commission assisted by two members (Sir Christopher Clarke & Lady Wilcox) and two consultants (Sir de Vic Carey from Guernsey and Mark Temple QC from Jersey). Since 2014 Bishop Trevor Willmott has by agreement being providing episcopal oversight for the Islands (with Islands parishes paying parish share to Canterbury in return for the provision of some common services), but it was recognised that this was not a permanent arrangement. Paragraphs 3-14 cover the historical background. -
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Guernsey) Order 1998
Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1998 No. 1503 CIVIL AVIATION The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Guernsey) Order 1998 Made - - - - 24th June 1998 Coming into force - - 24th August 1998 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 24th day of June 1998 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred on Her by sections 75 and 102 of, and paragraph 4 of Part III of Schedule 13 to, the Civil Aviation Act 1982(1), as that Act has effect in the Bailiwick of Guernsey by virtue of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Guernsey) Order 1992(2), is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:— 1. This Order may be cited as the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Guernsey) Order 1998 and shall come into force on 24th August 1998. 2. The provisions of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996(3) shall, subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to this Order, have effect in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and shall form part of the law of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. 3.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) (Guernsey) Order 1972(4) (hereinafter referred to as “the 1972 Order”) is hereby revoked. (2) Subject to paragraph (4) below, any investigation commenced under the 1972 Order which has not, prior to the coming into force of this Order, been the subject of a report submitted to the Bailiff, shall continue as if it had been commenced under this Order.