Kanetech Limited v AG [2013] JRC 121 (21 June 2013)

Kanetech Limited v AG [2013] JRC 121 (21 June 2013)

A contractor who undertakes prescribed building work without a permit is criminally liable under Article 33 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, regardless of whether it was responsible for obtaining the permit or able to apply for it. The indefinite article 'a person' allows for multiple persons to be liable.

Citation
[2013] JRC 121
Parties
Appellant: Kanetech Limited; Respondent: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrate's Court on a Question of Law
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Building Regulations, Criminal Liability of Contractors, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Administrative Law Construction Law Statutory Interpretation Building Regulations Criminal Liability of Contractors Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanetech Limited

Appellant

HM Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrate's Court on a Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contractor can be criminally liable under Article 33 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 for undertaking prescribed building work without a permit
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'a person who undertakes prescribed building work' in Article 33

Ratio Decidendi

A contractor who undertakes prescribed building work without a permit is criminally liable under Article 33 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, regardless of whether it was responsible for obtaining the permit or able to apply for it. The indefinite article 'a person' allows for multiple persons to be liable.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Magistrate for trial
  • Attorney General invited to reconsider public interest in prosecution