CMC Holdings Ltd. v. Forster [2016] 2 JLR_Note 5 (26 August 2016)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court determined the applicability of limitation periods to legal proceedings involving trusts.
02
Material facts
Parties
CMC Holdings Ltd.
ApplicantForster
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether limitation of actions applies to legal proceedings involving trusts
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey law
Limitation of actions in trust proceedings
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court determined the applicability of limitation periods to legal proceedings involving trusts.
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 >> CMC Holdings Ltd. v. Forster [2016] 2 JLR_Note 5 (26 August 2016) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2016/JLR16N205.html Cite as: [2016] 2 JLR_Note 5 [ New search ] [ Help ] CMC Holdings Ltd. v. Forster 2016 (2) JLR Note 5 (26 August 2016) Trusts-legal proceedings-limitation of actions 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: 2016 (2) JLR Note 5 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2016/JLR16N205.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.