JK Ltd. v Planning Min. [2012] 1 JLR_Note 10 (31 August 2011)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court determined the appropriateness of using a modified procedure for the planning law appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
JK Ltd.
ApplicantPlanning Minister
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appeal under planning law should proceed under a modified procedure
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey planning law
Appeals in planning law may be subject to a modified procedure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court determined the appropriateness of using a modified procedure for the planning law appeal.
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 >> JK Ltd. v Planning Min. [2012] 1 JLR_Note 10 (31 August 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2011/JLR12N110.html Cite as: [2012] 1 JLR_Note 10 [ New search ] [ Help ] JK Ltd. v Planning Min. 2012 (1) JLR Note 10 (31 August 2011) Planning Law-appeals-modified procedure 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: 2012 (1) JLR Note 10 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2011/JLR12N110.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.