Anagram v Mayo [1994] JLR 181 (25 May 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] JLR 181
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory
More details
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that a putative defendant subject to an interim injunction may be made a party for the purpose of obtaining particulars under the rules, and the court may order particulars to be given to a non-party in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Court disposition
application granted
Orders
- Particulars to be provided to the applicant, even though the respondent is a putative defendant and not served
02
Material facts
Parties
Anagram
ApplicantMayo
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a putative defendant may be made a party to proceedings for the purpose of obtaining particulars under Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/14(1), even if not served
- 02
Whether the court may order particulars to be given to a non-party in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Sought particulars from a putative defendant subject to an interim injunction, arguing entitlement under the rules or inherent jurisdiction.
- Respondent
- Contended that as a non-served putative defendant, they should not be compelled to provide particulars.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/14(1)
A putative defendant may be made a party to proceedings for the purpose of obtaining particulars under Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/14(1), even if not served.
- 02
Inherent jurisdiction of the court
The court has inherent jurisdiction to order particulars to be given even to a non-party.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that a putative defendant subject to an interim injunction may be made a party for the purpose of obtaining particulars under the rules, and the court may order particulars to be given to a non-party in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Court disposition
application granted
- Particulars to be provided to the applicant, even though the respondent is a putative defendant and not served
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Anagram v Mayo [1994] JLR 181 (25 May 1994) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1994/JLR940181.html Cite as: [1994] JLR 181 [ New search ] [ Help ] Anagram v Mayo 1994 JLR 181 (25 May 1994) Civil Procedure - parties - defendant - putative defendant may be party to proceedings within Royal Court Rules 1992, r.6/14(1), as amended, for purpose of obtaining particulars even though not served, if subject of interim injunction-court may order particulars to be given even to non-party in exercise of inherent jurisdiction The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1994 JLR 181 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1994/JLR940181.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.