K v P [2009] JLR_Note 42 (25 August 2009)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Family Law / Interlocutory
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the applicant's request for maintenance pending suit under family law provisions.
Court disposition
undisclosed
02
Material facts
Parties
K
ApplicantP
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether maintenance pending suit should be granted
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey family law
Court may order maintenance pending suit in family proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the applicant's request for maintenance pending suit under family law provisions.
Court disposition
undisclosed
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 >> K v P [2009] JLR_Note 42 (25 August 2009) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2009/JLR09N042.html Cite as: [2009] JLR_Note 42 [ New search ] [ Help ] K v P 2009 JLR Note 42 (25 August 2009) Family Law-financial provision-maintenance pending suit 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: 2009 JLR Note 42 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2009/JLR09N042.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.