I -v- J (Family) [2014] JRC 109 (13 May 2014)

I -v- J (Family) [2014] JRC 109 (13 May 2014)

The court declined to order security for periodical payments at this time, finding that the father had complied with orders since judgment, his property was his home and business, and encumbering it or requiring a deposit would be disproportionate and exacerbate strained relations. However, the court warned that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] JRC 109
Parties
Applicant: Mother; Respondent: Father; Amicus Curiae: Advocate Hiller
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Financial Provision for Child / Post Judgment Submissions on Security for Periodical Payments
Outcome
Application for security for periodical payments refused
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments, Security for Maintenance, Financial Provision for Children
Family Law Child Law Periodical Payments Security for Maintenance Financial Provision for Children

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Applicant

Father

Respondent

Advocate Hiller

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Family Law Financial Provision for Child / Post Judgment Submissions on Security for Periodical Payments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether periodical payments for the benefit of the child should be secured against the father's property or by deposit
  2. 2 Principles for ordering security for periodical payments under Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Schedule 1 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order security for periodical payments at this time, finding that the father had complied with orders since judgment, his property was his home and business, and encumbering it or requiring a deposit would be disproportionate and exacerbate strained relations. However, the court warned that security would be ordered if the father defaulted in future.

Court Disposition

Application for security for periodical payments refused