Grant Thornton appointed first provisional liquidators in Jersey

The Royal Court has issued a Letter of Request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales seeking recognition of the first Provisional Liquidators appointed in Jersey. 

• The Royal Court has confirmed that where insolvency procedures in Jersey and another jurisdiction are closely analogous (such as provisional liquidation in Jersey and in England and Wales) this constitutes the strongest basis for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and seek assistance from the foreign court.
• The Court exercised its discretion to issue a letter of request seeking recognition of provisional liquidators' appointment in respect of a Jersey company pursuant to the mutual assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986, where they had been persuaded it would be favourably received by the English courts.
• The Court confirmed that a letter of request should ensure that the scope of powers sought in another Court should be subject to the same limitations and go no further than the act or order appointing the provisional liquidators, but reflect that Jersey remains the principal jurisdiction in the provisional liquidation.

Background 

James Pirie and Alan Roberts, of Grant Thornton Limited (the "Provisional Liquidators") were appointed as provisional liquidators of RTI Limited (the "Company") on 17 July 2025. One of the key reasons for their appointment was an urgent need to investigate the Company's affairs and safeguard its assets, pending the Court's ruling on a winding-up application submitted by one of the Company's creditors, OWH SE i.L.

The Provisional Liquidators applied to the Royal Court for the issue of a letter of request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ("High Court") seeking assistance by way of the recognition in England and Wales of their appointment. The purpose of the recognition was principally to enable investigations into Company assets and the gathering of information and books and records being held by individuals, companies and/or firms in England, through the grant of equivalent powers by the High Court. The Company is also party to arbitral proceedings in England and accordingly the Provisional Liquidators sought recognition by the High Court of the moratorium on proceedings imposed pursuant to Article 157B(4) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.

This application was largely unprecedented, marking the first letter of request concerning the appointment of provisional liquidators in Jersey. It followed only one prior instance, an unreported case in which the Court had granted an application for the issue of a letter of request to the High Court in similar terms, seeking assistance by way of the recognition of liquidators, also appointed in respect of a Jersey company (called Otaki Holdings Limited) who were recognised by the High Court in January 2023.

In evaluating the Provisional Liquidators' application, the Court identified three core elements to be assessed: (i) the Royal Court's jurisdiction, (ii) the Royal Court's discretion, and (iii) the scope of the Letter of Request.

The Royal Court's Jurisdiction to issue a Letter of Request 

A central issue raised by the Provisional Liquidators concerned the jurisdiction of the Royal Court to seek assistance from a foreign court, specifically in the absence of statutory authority conferring such power. In the context of insolvency proceedings, the Royal Court has historically relied upon its inherent jurisdiction.

This principle was affirmed in Re OT Computers Limited [2002] JLR N10, where the Royal Court issued a letter of request to facilitate an administration order in England, on the basis that such a process would yield a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets than a winding-up in Jersey. Further affirmation came in Representation of The Viscount v Cochrane and Orb ARL [2017] JRC 025, where a letter of request was issued in the context of désastre proceedings. While the Cochrane judgment did not explicitly outline the jurisdictional basis, it was accepted that the Court was prepared to issue such requests to enable the Viscount to take necessary steps in England.

Although decisions such as OT Computers and REO involved Jersey companies being subjected to English insolvency procedures not mirrored in Jersey law, the principles they established were recognised as having broader application. Specifically, they supported the Royal Court’s inherent jurisdiction to seek foreign assistance in insolvency matters more generally

Ultimately in the present case, the Court concluded that when insolvency procedures in both jurisdictions are analogous, such as provisional liquidation is between Jersey and England and Wales, that provides the strongest grounds for the Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to seek cross-border assistance.

The Royal Court's discretion to issue a Letter of Request

Having determined the Court possessed jurisdiction, the Court considered whether to exercise its discretion to issue the letter of request sought by the Provisional Liquidators. The Court was persuaded to exercise such discretion having determined that:

(a)   it was plainly in the best interests of the creditors for the Provisional Liquidators' appointment to be recognised in England and Wales;

(b)   it was apparent from the Provisional Liquidators' investigations that progress would be inhibited in the absence of recognition in England and Wales; and

(c)   the Letter of Request would be favourably received by the English Court – which was based upon an opinion provided by English counsel.

The Scope of the Letter of Request 

In issuing the Letter of Request, substantially in the form applied for, the Court emphasised that any powers sought through a recognition application based on the letter of request must be carefully confined to those conferred by the act or order of appointment issued by the Royal Court of Jersey and not exceed the scope of powers vested in them under Jersey law.

Additionally, the Letter of Request issued by the Royal Court made clear that the permission sought from the High Court was confined to assets and information located within England and Wales, with any investigations and subsequent applications for directions that the Provisional Liquidators might make to the High Court, to be limited to activities in that jurisdiction. This approach preserves the Royal Court’s primary jurisdiction over matters concerning the role of the Provisional Liquidators.

Conclusion

The Royal Court’s decision to issue a letter of request to the High Court marks a significant step in cross-border insolvency cooperation, particularly given the context of this being within the first provisional liquidation appointment in Jersey. By grounding its request in the close procedural alignment between jurisdictions and invoking section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Royal Court reaffirmed its commitment to judicial comity while safeguarding its own supervisory role.

Walkers (Jersey) LLP are representing the Provisional Liquidators in Jersey and brought the application on their behalf (and had previously also represented the liquidators in the matter of Otaki Holdings Limited).