Jersey’s Royal Court has put a live challenge to a Canadian tax information notice on hold until early 2027, after the Jersey Competent Authority asked the Privy Council to overturn the test the court would have had to apply.

On 3 September 2026, Commissioner Binnington adjourned a one-day hearing
that had been listed for 13 October. Three applicants — The Hilfreich
Foundation, The Falkenburg Foundation and Fakenham Limited — want a 2025 notice
to Royal Bank of Scotland International quashed.

The notice followed a request from the Canada Revenue Agency. The applicants are not the taxpayers under investigation.

The stay is procedural, not a win on the merits.

The court accepted that it would be wasteful to decide the case now under the 2023 Imperium test — that the court itself decides whether material is “tax information” — when the JCA is trying to have that test replaced with a much harder Wednesbury standard.

The JCA never appealed the 2023 Court of Appeal ruling. It is attacking it through a later Royal Court judgment. The adjournment is time-limited: if the Privy Council grants leave, any further delay will have to be argued again.

The sharper commercial point is costs. Since 26 February 2026, R&O.15/2026
has removed tax-notice challenges from the limited costs carve-out. Challengers
pay their own lawyers even if they win. The JCA remains protected. The Order
has no transitional clause, so costs incurred before that date in pending cases
remain an open issue.

What it means: advice on fighting a TIEA notice is now unsettled, and the bill is
almost certainly unrecoverable. An adjournment buys time, not protection. If
the JCA succeeds in London, the information is still likely to go.

Watch: the Privy Council’s leave decision, expected around November 2026.

Sources

• The Hilfreich Foundation & Ors v JCA [2026] JRC 231 (jerseylaw.je) https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/%5b2026%5dJRC231.aspx

• See Briefing below: The Hilfreich Foundation & Ors v Jersey Competent Authority [2026] JRC 231

Impact on Jersey firms

The firms most exposed are those that hold client records and receive notices: banks, trust companies, fund administrators, and law firms. The judgment changes their advice and cost planning, not their duty to comply with a valid notice.

1. Advice on challenging a notice is less certain. Until the JCPC rules on leave, firms cannot confidently say which test applies. If the JCA succeeds, a "not tax information" challenge becomes a Wednesbury argument, which is much harder to win.

2. Adjournment is now a live option. Other pending TIEA or Multilateral Convention judicial reviews may cite this decision to seek a stay. Expect the JCA to resist, relying on Imperium [2024] JRC 291 (Birt, Commissioner) on the public interest in prompt exchange. Outcomes will turn on their facts.

3. Costs of challenge fall on the challenger. New Article 2A of the 2024 Order (inserted by R&O.15/2026 from 26 February 2026) takes tax information notice proceedings entirely outside the costs mitigation. A firm that challenges as an applicant bears its own costs even if it wins. R&O.15/2026 has no transitional, savings or application article and no explanatory note; nor did the 2024 Order (R&O.28/2024). Whether Article 2A reaches costs incurred before 26 February 2026 in proceedings already on foot is therefore a question of construction and a live argument for any challenge begun before that date.

• For trustees, this is a fiduciary question: can spending trust assets on an unrecoverable challenge be justified when the benefit may go to a beneficiary or third party?

• Engagement letters and trust instruments should make clear who funds a notice challenge.

4. Policy response is possible. The JCA argued that delay damages Jersey's standing with the Global Forum (paras 37–40). A legislative or procedural response is plausible, but that is an inference, not a judgment. Firms should not assume the current window will last.

5. AML practice (outside the judgment). Receiving a notice is not in itself grounds for suspicion. Most firms' frameworks still treat it as a trigger for a CDD or relationship review, and nothing here changes that.

Impact on clients of Jersey firms

For clients, the judgment buys time, not protection. If the JCA's view prevails, the information is likely to be exchanged in the end.

• Third parties can be caught. The applicants are not the taxpayers under investigation. Structures connected to an investigated person can still be the subject of a notice.

• Delay is not avoidance. A client who wins now could face a second notice in the same or similar terms if the JCA succeeds at the JCPC (para 13(iv)).

• Challenging is expensive, and the money is not coming back. On the costs position described in the judgment, clients should get a realistic cost–benefit assessment before instructing a challenge.

• Being told about a notice. Whether a recipient may inform the client depends on the specific Regulations and the terms of the notice. This briefing does not verify the current disclosure rules; check the live Regulations before advising.

Briefing: The Hilfreich Foundation & Ors v Jersey Competent Authority [2026] JRC 231

Executive summary

• What happened: On 3 September 2026, the Royal Court adjourned a judicial review of a tax information notice (a Canadian TIEA request served on RBSI). The hearing moves from 13 October 2026 to early 2027.

• Why: The JCA is asking the Privy Council to overturn the Imperium test, under which the court itself decides whether material is "tax information". Deciding Hilfreich first risked applying a test that was about to be reversed.

• What it is not: A merits ruling or authority that such challenges will routinely be stayed. It is one Commissioner's discretionary decision, and the stay is time-limited.

• The costs point: Since 26 February 2026, R&O.15/2026 (new Article 2A) has taken tax notice challenges outside the costs mitigation. Challengers bear their own costs even if they win, while the JCA stays protected. The Order has no transitional provision, so the position on costs incurred before that date in pending cases is unresolved.

• For firms: Advice on challenging a notice is uncertain until the Privy Council rules. Budget any challenge as irrecoverable. Trustees should weigh whether funding a challenge from trust assets is justified.

• For clients: An adjournment buys time, not protection. If the JCA wins, the information is likely to be exchanged in the end, possibly after a fresh notice.

• Watch: The Privy Council's leave decision, expected around November 2026, then the re-fixed hearing in early 2027.

Bottom line

The Royal Court adjourned a TIEA judicial review until early 2027 because the JCA is asking the Privy Council to overturn the test the Royal Court would have to apply. This is a procedural, discretionary decision, not a merits ruling. Its real significance is what it exposes: the test for challenging tax information notices is now unsettled, and the costs of challenging one fall almost entirely on the challenger.

• Court: Royal Court (Samedi), A. R. Binnington, Commissioner, sitting alone

• Date: 3 September 2026

• Parties: The Hilfreich Foundation, The Falkenburg Foundation and Fakenham Limited v Jersey Competent Authority (JCA)

• Counsel: Advocate J. Harvey-Hills (Applicants); Advocate S. A. Meiklejohn (JCA)

• Outcome: Adjournment granted; hearing to be re-fixed for early 2027

What the court decided and why

The court postponed a one-day rolled-up hearing, listed for 13 October 2026, covering both leave and the substantive judicial review.

• The underlying challenge. The JCA issued a notice dated 26 February 2025 to The Royal Bank of Scotland International. It was issued under the Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Jersey) Regulations 2008, following a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) request under the Jersey–Canada TIEA of 11 January 2012. The applicants seek withdrawal or quashing of the notice. The CRA has confirmed the applicants are not the taxpayers under investigation (para 41(i)).

• The trigger. The JCA did not appeal the Court of Appeal's 2023 Imperium judgment. That judgment held that whether material is "tax information" is an objective question for the court, not a Wednesbury review of the JCA's view. The Royal Court applied that test in Imperium [2026] JRC 113 and struck down most of the requests. The JCA has now applied to the Privy Council (issued 19 May 2026) for leave to appeal that Royal Court judgment, in substance challenging the test itself.

• The test was applied. Royal Court Rule 10/5 allows adjournment where expedient in the interests of justice. The court applied the T.S. Engineering v Bisson [1996] JLR N 3b factors. The applicants also relied on Re Yates' Settlement Trusts [1954] 1 WLR 564 and Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch) for adjourning pending a higher court's ruling on the governing principles.

How the factors fell.

• Prejudice to the applicants if refused: mainly costs. A win now could be undone by a JCA win at the Privy Council and a fresh notice, with costs irrecoverable.

• Prejudice to the JCA if granted: delay in exchange and to Jersey's standing on timely cooperation. This is important, but the applicants are using an established remedy.

• Convenience of the court: not significant; there is time to relist the October slot.

• Efficient dispatch of business: a real risk of deciding on a test later found to be wrong.

• Who caused the difficulty: solely the JCA's appeal in other proceedings.

Limits on the order.

• The adjournment is not open-ended. The parties must reschedule the hearing for early 2027. If the JCPC grants special leave before then, any further request for adjournment will be considered afresh (para 43).

Legal context

• Three strands meet in this judgment: the Imperium test for "tax information", the Privy Council's 2025 costs ruling, and the costs Orders that followed it.

Chronology, oldest first

1. 2018: International Co-operation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Law 2018. The JCA is protected from adverse cost orders.

2. 2023: Imperium [2023] (1) JLR 229 (Court of Appeal). Whether material is "tax information" is an objective question for the court. The JCA does not appeal.

3. 18 January 2024: Imperium [2024] JCA 014. The Court of Appeal declares the 2018 Law incompatible with Article 6 ECHR.

4. 4 June 2024: 2024 Order (R&O.28/2024). Costs below GBP 75,000 (and some above it) are taken outside the 2018 Law's protection.

5. 24 June 2025: Imperium [2025] UKPC 28. The Privy Council sets aside the declaration: Article 6 is not engaged in challenges to tax information notices.

6. 26 February 2026: Amendment Order (R&O.15/2026). The threshold falls to GBP 50,000, and the new Article 2A removes tax information notice proceedings from the carve-out entirely.

7. 2026: Imperium [2026] JRC 113 (Royal Court). Applying the 2023 test, the court strikes down most of the requests. The judgment does not give its date.

8. 19 May 2026: JCA applies to the Privy Council for leave to appeal. The 2023 test is now in issue.

9. 3 September 2026: Hilfreich [2026] JRC 231. The 13 October hearing is adjourned.

10. Expected around November 2026: Privy Council decides to leave.

11. Expected early 2027: Hilfreich hearing re-fixed.

The 2026 Order does not stand alone: cite R&O.15/2026 for the instrument, or the 2024 Order as amended for the operative text (enacted text; 2024 Order, current).

Why the JCPC 2025 ruling matters here.

• The Privy Council decided the appeal on the threshold point alone and expressly declined to address whether the 2018 Law was a disproportionate restriction (judgment). With Article 6 out of play, the costs imbalance cannot be attacked on human rights grounds in these proceedings.

The resulting costs position (as submitted by the applicants, para 22).

• The applicants bear their own costs in full, win or lose, at least from the date of the 2026 Order. They risk an adverse costs order if they lose. The JCA is shielded from paying its costs, whatever the outcome.

Reading the judgment carefully

This decision should be cited narrowly. Four points matter before anyone relies on it.

1. Low precedential weight. It is an interlocutory, discretionary decision of a single Commissioner, and the court expressly refused an open-ended stay. It is not the authority that TIEA judicial reviews will generally be stayed pending appeals in other cases.

2. Para 19 is advocacy, not law. Counsel submitted that the JCPC "must be taken" to have agreed that the 2018 Law was disproportionate. That is wrong. The Board decided the appeal on Article 6 engagement alone and expressly declined to address the remaining issues. Citing this judgment for that proposition would be an error.

3. The collateral challenge is the real issue. The JCA did not appeal the 2023 Court of Appeal judgment but is now attacking its reasoning through the later Royal Court judgment. The court and the applicants both describe this as an appeal "out of time" (paras 35(b) and 41(v)). Whether the JCPC entertains that route is the question to watch.

4. Drafting errors in the published text. Take care when quoting:

• Para 1 dates the hearing "31 July 2025", almost certainly meant to be 2026, given the JCPC application was issued on 19 May 2026.

• "Wolfe JA" in para 7 should read "Wolffe JA".

• The published title misspells "Authority".

• Para 9 refers to the "2008 and 2014 Regulations"; this notice was issued under the 2008 Regulations only.

What to watch and verification status

• The next decision point is the JCPC's ruling on leave, expected around November 2026, followed by the re-fixed hearing in early 2027.

Verified

• Facts and reasoning of [2026] JRC 231, taken from the published judgment.

• Imperium [2025] UKPC 28: Article 6 not engaged, and the remaining issues not addressed. Checked against the Privy Council judgment.

• R&O.15/2026: title, dates, enabling power, the GBP 50,000 threshold and Article 2A. Confirmed from the enacted text by Mathew Beale; Claude could not access jerseylaw.je directly. The judgment's description matches.

• No transitional, savings or application article in R&O.15/2026 or R&O.28/2024. Confirmed by Mathew Beale.

Open or unverified

• Whether Article 2A reaches costs incurred before 26 February 2026. This is a question of construction. Counsel's "at least from the date of the 2026 Order" (para 22(i)) is a submission, not a holding.

• Jersey authority on whether the 2018 Law applied to costs of litigation already underway. No case has been identified yet; one is needed before the analogy can be relied upon.

• Imperium [2026] JRC 113 and the JCPC leave application. Taken from the judgment, not independently verified.

• Disclosure rules for notice recipients. Not reviewed.

Open question: Has the JCPC listed the JCA's leave application for a decision date?

Sources

• The Hilfreich Foundation & Ors v JCA [2026] JRC 231 (jerseylaw.je) https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/%5b2026%5dJRC231.aspx

• Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v JCA [2025] UKPC 28 (BAILII)

• JCPC judgment PDF, JCPC 2024/0044

• International Co-operation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Amendment Order 2026, R&O.15/2026

• International Co-operation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Order 2024, current version