Princess ordered to pay costs after “disrespecting” Jersey court

Thursday 11 November 2021

The Bailiff has ordered an Italian princess to pay more than £76,000 of her sister's legal costs after she tried to halt Jersey proceedings via a French court in a move described as "entirely disrespectful".

Handed down on Wednesday, the decision comes in the context of a long-running family feud.

It first played out in Jersey in 2017 when the Royal Court found that Cristiana Crociani's sister - Princess Camilla de Bourbon de Deux Siciles - and her mother - former Italian filmstar Edy Vessel - had conspired to divert wealth worth millions away from her. Since then, a battle to recoup that money has ensued.

In May 2021, Princess Camilla issued proceedings against Jersey's BNP Paribas, Cristiana and members of her immediate family in a court in Paris to claim $120m (£88.7m), which appeared to have been calculated on the amount Jersey courts and others said the Princess owed, as the Bailiff explained yesterday.

Cristiana filed the application for an anti-suit injunction on 18 August and a hearing was set for October, before being deferred to 10 November.

No evidence was filed by Princess Camilla or her legal advisers, but she filed a summons seeking an adjournment on 25 October in Jersey as well as an anti-anti-suit injunction in Paris. 

The Bailiff refused to adjourn the hearing and Princess Camilla filed a further urgent application in the Parisian court seeking an order that would force Cristina to withdraw her suit.

As a result, the Bailiff was urged to issue a letter to the French court asking them to not hear the Princess' application.

In discussions with legal advisers for the two sisters, the Bailiff said he had expressed the view that the Princess was seeking to “pre-empt the jurisdiction of this court to which she was undoubtedly subject”, which he described as “disrespectful”.

The application was heard in Paris yesterday, and the judgment handed down at 09:00, one hour before Jersey's Royal Court was due to sit for an all-day hearing. The judgment required Cristiana to withdraw her proceedings, or face a fine of €10,000 for each day she delays the withdrawal, and to pay her sister's legal costs. 

Advocate Edward Drummond, Cristiana’s lawyer, said she had no intention to be in contempt of the French court and withdrew the proceedings. He however sought to have her costs paid on an indemnity basis given the Princess' “outrageous” tactics and the fact the steps she took in France had been “entirely disrespectful” to the Jersey court.

The Bailiff said Princess Camilla’s filing of an anti-anti-suit injunction had shown “clear disrespect and contempt on the technical sense of the procedures of this court to which she is subject”, adding that they crossed “the threshold of unreasonableness” which meant she should not only pay Cristiana’s costs but also “on the full indemnity basis”. 

He said that while there was nothing “legally wrong” with Princess Camilla’s application, as argued by her lawyer Advocate Hiren Mistry, Cristiana’s case was an “entirely arguable case that may have succeeded” and that could no longer be heard “as a result of disrespect”.

He concluded that Princess Camilla should pay half of Cristiana’s legal costs, £76,468.

The landmark judgment in 2017 ordered that a $200m trust – including assets such as properties and paintings by famous artists – be reconstituted.

When Princess Camilla failed to properly disclose the location of a $66m Gaugin painting, among other valuable family assets, she was found in contempt of court in October 2019.

A £2m fine was imposed last December because the Royal Court judged that she hadn’t taken the opportunity to fully ‘purge’ that contempt. The Princess argued that she was unable to pay the £2m fine and then appealed that judgment but this was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

Last month, Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith threw out an application from the Princess to obtain a bank guarantee from the Court that her £2m would be paid back, if she won her appeal to the Privy Council.

Pictured top: The case was due to be heard in the Royal Court yesterday by the Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, and Jurats Jerry Ramsden and Jane Ronge.