Helm Trust v Chatfield [2013] 1 JLR_Note 13 (15 March 2013)
- 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 validity of the employment contract variation based on the requirement of mutual consent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Helm Trust
ApplicantChatfield
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether there was a valid variation of the employment contract
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
common law
Variation of an employment contract requires mutual consent of both parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court determined the validity of the employment contract variation based on the requirement of mutual consent.
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 >> Helm Trust v Chatfield [2013] 1 JLR_Note 13 (15 March 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2013/JLR13N113.html Cite as: [2013] 1 JLR_Note 13 [ New search ] [ Help ] Helm Trust v Chatfield 2013 (1) JLR Note 13 (15 March 2013) Employment-contract-variation 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: 2013 (1) JLR Note 13 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2013/JLR13N113.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.