G v J (Matrimonial) [2022] JRC 218 (18 October 2022)

G v J (Matrimonial) [2022] JRC 218 (18 October 2022)

The court has no jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949 to order financial provision for a child who was over 18 at the date of the application, as the statutory definition of 'child of the family' incorporates the definition of 'child' as under 18 in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. The claim for a greater share of assets for unmatched contribution was unsupported by evidence and not reasonable at this stage. The appeal had no prospects of success and leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2022] JRC 218
Parties
Applicant: Petitioner; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Jurisdiction for Adult Child Maintenance, Unmatched Contribution, Statutory Interpretation
Family Law Ancillary Relief Jurisdiction for Adult Child Maintenance Unmatched Contribution Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Royal Court of Jersey has jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949 to order financial provision for an adult child where the child was over 18 at the date of the application
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a greater share of matrimonial assets for unmatched contribution post-separation

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949 to order financial provision for a child who was over 18 at the date of the application, as the statutory definition of 'child of the family' incorporates the definition of 'child' as under 18 in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. The claim for a greater share of assets for unmatched contribution was unsupported by evidence and not reasonable at this stage. The appeal had no prospects of success and leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused