Jersey Judgment

Haas v Duquemin [2000] JLR_Note 54b (08 August 2000)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court clarified the rights of co-owners in ownership en indivis.

Court disposition

clarification of legal rights

02

Material facts

Parties

Haas

Applicant

Duquemin

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

rights of co-owner in ownership en indivis

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Jersey property law

    Co-owners in ownership en indivis have specific rights regarding the property.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court clarified the rights of co-owners in ownership en indivis.

Court disposition

clarification of legal rights

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Haas v Duquemin [2000] JLR_Note 54b (08 August 2000) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2000/JLR00N054b.html Cite as: [2000] JLR_Note 54b [ New search ] [ Help ] Haas v Duquemin 2000 JLR Note 54b (08 August 2000)

OWNERSHIP

EN INDIVIS -rights of co-owner 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: 2000 JLR Note 54b BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2000/JLR00N054b.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.