Skinner and Skinner -v- Minister for Infrastructure [2017] JRC 035 (28 February 2017)

Skinner and Skinner -v- Minister for Infrastructure [2017] JRC 035 (28 February 2017)

The interim injunction was discharged due to the plaintiffs' material failure to make full and frank disclosure, which was sufficiently serious to warrant refusal to re-impose the injunction. The urgency did not justify ex parte proceedings, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Citation
[2017] JRC 035
Parties
Plaintiff: Bruce Ronald Skinner; Plaintiff: Gillian Linda Skinner; Defendant: Minister for Infrastructure; Defendant: Public of the Island of Jersey
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction / Application to Discharge Interim Injunction
Outcome
interim injunction discharged, not re-imposed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Ex Parte Applications, Title to Land
Civil Procedure Property Law Interim Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Ex Parte Applications Title to Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Ronald Skinner

Plaintiff

Gillian Linda Skinner

Plaintiff

Minister for Infrastructure

Defendant

Public of the Island of Jersey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction / Application to Discharge Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure in their ex parte application for an interim injunction
  2. 2 Whether the interim injunction should be discharged and re-imposed
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding title to the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction was discharged due to the plaintiffs' material failure to make full and frank disclosure, which was sufficiently serious to warrant refusal to re-impose the injunction. The urgency did not justify ex parte proceedings, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Court Disposition

interim injunction discharged, not re-imposed

Orders

  • Interim injunction discharged
  • No re-imposition of injunction