Camilla de Bourbon des Deux Siciles (Appellant) v Zedra Jersey Trust Corporation Limited and another (Respondents) (Jersey)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0028

Jurisdiction

Jersey

Parties

Appellant(s)

Camilla de Bourbon Deux Siciles

Respondent(s)

Zedra Jersey Trust Corporation Limited

Matthew Jowitt KC

Issue

Did the Royal Court have jurisdiction to order that the appellant would be discharged from contempt only on payment of a fine, and subject to a term of imprisonment in the event of default? This appeal arises out of a long-running dispute over a trust (known as the “Grand Trust”), which since 2007 has been governed by Jersey law. The Grand Trust was settled by the appellant’s mother, Madame Crociani, for the benefit of the appellant (then aged 16) and her sister Cristiana Crociani (then aged 14 years). In February 2010, an appointment of assets valued at about US $132 million was made from the Grand Trust into another trust settled by Madame Crociani, and subsequently was transferred to Madame Crociani and the appellant. In 2013, Cristiana Crociani and her children commenced proceedings to have the 2010 appointment set aside and the Grand Trust reconstituted. The appellant was a defendant in those proceedings, along with (amongst others) her mother and the Trust Corporation. It was not alleged against the appellant that she was a party to the breach, which was organised and effected by her mother and the Trust Corporation acting at her mother’s request. Consequently, the appellant was not represented in the proceedings and did not give evidence

Facts

In 2017, those proceedings were resolved by a judgment in favour of Cristiana Crociani and her children. Madame Crociani and the Trust Corporation were ordered to reconstitute the Trust. In reality this meant that the Trust Corporation would reconstitute the trust and then pursue an indemnity against Madame Crociani. The Trust Corporation paid out roughly $114 million in compensation, and more in costs, in order to satisfy the orders made under the substantive judgment against it and Madame Crociani. The Trust Corporation struggled to enforce its indemnities from Madame Crociani, and therefore applied for an order requiring the appellant to disclose her knowledge of assets held by Madame Crociani. That application was heard by the Royal Court on 13 December 2018. The Royal Court granted the order sought by the Trust Corporation. This became known as the December 2018 Disclosure Order, or “DDO.” The DDO was endorsed with a penal notice warning of the consequences of non-compliance as being contempt of court with a potential sanction of imprisonment. The appellant’s entitlement to apply to the Court for reconsideration of the DDO was expressly set out on its face. The appellant did not apply to the Royal Court for reconsideration of the DDO, nor did she appeal against it. The time for compliance with the DDO was extended by agreement between the appellant and the Trust Corporation to 25 January 2019. On 21 March 2019, the Trust Corporation applied for a declaration that the appellant was in contempt of court by failing to comply with the DDO. On 7 October 2019, the Royal Court ruled that the appellant was in contempt of court. The appellant appealed against that decision, and her appeal was dismissed by a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29 January 2020. The question of sanction was adjourned for later determination. In a judgment dated 28 September 2020, the Royal Court concluded that the appellant had been in a flagrant contempt of court for the best part of two years, had repeatedly breached the DDO, and had been fully warned of the consequences. The Royal Court therefore imposed a fine of £2 million on the appellant, to be paid within two months and with a term of 12 months imprisonment in default of payment. The appellant appealed the sanction judgment and sought a stay of sanction pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal refused to stay the sanction, and dismissed her appeal. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“JCPC”). Permission was refused by the JCPC in a decision dated 19 July 2022. The appellant also brought proceedings against the Trust Corporation, seeking damages for abuse of process. The Trust Corporation obtained an order debarring her from pursuing these claims until the fine had been paid in full. The appellant appealed against the grant of the debarring order. Before the substantive hearing of that appeal, she entered into a global settlement with the Trust Corporation and other connected parties. The underlying settlement agreement remains confidential, but the terms of discontinuance were recorded in a schedule and included the Trust Corporation undertaking “not to apply to the court for the enforcement of the contempt of court judgment or any sanction.” The Trust Corporation therefore has no continuing interest in enforcement of the DDO. In light of the settlement, the appellant issued a summons seeking to be discharged from contempt. The Royal Court, by a decision dated 1 July 2025, ordered that the contempt would be discharged only on the basis that the appellant meaningfully purge the contempt. The appellant had by the time of the Royal Court decision already paid £133,333.32 of the fine, and the Court ordered that the contempt would be fully discharged on the further payment of £866,666 The appellant appealed against that order to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The Court of Appeal extended the time to pay the balance of £866,666.68 to 4pm on Friday 30 January 2026, in default of which she would be liable to a term of imprisonment of 12 months. The appellant now appeals to the JCPC. She argues that the Court of Appeal was wrong not to quash the Royal Court’s order.