Jackson (nee Jackson) v Jackson (nee Hurst) [1965] JJ 463 (27 May 1965)
The court will not extend time for default if doing so would deprive the defendant of the benefit of prescription.
- Citation
- [1965] JJ 463
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jackson (nee Jackson); Defendant: Jackson (nee Hurst)
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 1965
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory
- Outcome
- application denied
- Legal Topics
- Bille De Prevot, Default by Defendant, Prescription
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 2 Party arguments 2
Parties
Jackson (nee Jackson)
Plaintiff
Jackson (nee Hurst)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a defendant's default in a Bille de Prevot proceeding should have consequences after one default
- 2 Whether the court should extend time for default if it deprives the defendant of the benefit of prescription
Ratio Decidendi
The court will not extend time for default if doing so would deprive the defendant of the benefit of prescription.
Court Disposition
application denied
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment