Mme Hennessy, reportedly a billionaire who lives in Belgium, last engaged with the Royal Court in 2019 in her attempt to access money left by her late father in Jersey accounts.
Jersey trusts were overseen by Advocate Philip Sinel, who acted for Kilian Hennessey before his death in 2010 and then represented his Luxembourg-based son, Gilles, a half-sibling of Mme Hennessy.
In May 2015, Mme Hennessy received a package sent by an anonymous person under cover of a Jersey postcard with the text: “Again, I think you deserve the truth”.
Pictured: The case was heard in the Royal Court.
The package contained documents, copied, it seemed, from the files of Advocate Sinel which Jersey’s Court of Appeal ruled were improperly obtained because they attracted legal professional privilege by virtue of the lawyer/client relationship between Advocate Sinel and Gilles Hennessy.
Since the heiress received the documents, there has been ongoing litigation in various courts over what should happen to them. Advocate Sinel secured a judgment from the Royal Court ordering their return or destruction, but Mme Hennessy has filed them in Belgian and Swiss courts in order to initiate proceedings against Gilles Hennessy and his family.
£100,000 of Mme Hennessy’s fine, which she will have to pay if they are not paid by the first week of July, is for her “contempt of the orders” made under the Royal Court’s earlier judgment.
The remaining £10,000 relates to her ignoring various costs orders.
Advocate James Dickinson, acting for Advocate Sinel, proposed a £3m fine for Mme Hennessy failing to comply with the injunctions of the judgment, and a recurring fine of £10,000 a day for the failures to comply with her obligations under it.
His arguments were based on a recent £2m fine for contempt given to Princess Camilla Crociani de Bourbon des Deux Siciles given by the Royal Court, which is currently being appealed.
However, Advocate Dickinson’s arguments were rejected by the Court, which said: “While the penalty we impose must be large enough to bring home to [Mme Hennessy] – an apparently wealthy woman – the Court’s disapproval of its orders not being complied with, the penalty must reflect the seriousness of the conduct and in our view the respondent’s conduct here is not to be equated with the conduct of the respondent in BNP Paribas v Camilla de Bourbon des Deux Siciles.
“We regard the level of financial penalty sought as disproportionate.”
Justifying its £100,000 fine for Mme Hennessy ignoring its orders, the Court said: “Such a fine is substantial, more properly reflects the conduct of the respondent and, notwithstanding her apparent wealth, is sufficient to bring home to her the Court’s disapproval of her conduct.”
Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith was sitting with Jurats Jerry Ramsden and Steven Austin-Vautier.