J v H [2014] 2 JLR_Note 11 (09 July 2014)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Family Law / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the conduct of the parties in determining the appropriate financial provision.
02
Material facts
Parties
J
ApplicantH
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
financial provision in family law proceedings
- 02
impact of parties' conduct on financial orders
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey family law
The conduct of parties may be relevant to the determination of financial provision in family law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the conduct of the parties in determining the appropriate financial provision.
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 >> J v H [2014] 2 JLR_Note 11 (09 July 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR14N211.html Cite as: [2014] 2 JLR_Note 11 [ New search ] [ Help ] J v H 2014 (2) JLR Note 11 (09 July 2014) Family Law-financial provision-conduct of parties 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: 2014 (2) JLR Note 11 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR14N211.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.