1998/78 - Barker v Barker [1998] UR 78 (20 April 1998)

1998/78 - Barker v Barker [1998] UR 78 (20 April 1998)

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the risk of dissipation of assets no longer existed. The injunctions were properly served and maintained by court orders, and none of the grounds advanced by the defendant justified discharge. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

Citation
[1998] UR 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant; Fourth Party Cited: Beech Limited; Amicus Curiae: Advocate Speck; Plaintiff's Representative: Mr Jonathan Barker
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Interim Injunctions / Hearing of Defendant's Application to Discharge Injunctions
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Compulsory Purchase, Conflict of Interest, Affidavit Defects, Duration of Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Interim Injunctions Asset Dissipation Compulsory Purchase Conflict of Interest Affidavit Defects Duration of Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Beech Limited

Fourth Party Cited

Advocate Speck

Amicus Curiae

Mr Jonathan Barker

Plaintiff's Representative

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Interim Injunctions / Hearing of Defendant's Application to Discharge Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether affidavits supporting injunctions were defective
  3. 3 Whether injunctions lapsed under Rule 15/6(2) of the Royal Court Rules, 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the risk of dissipation of assets no longer existed. The injunctions were properly served and maintained by court orders, and none of the grounds advanced by the defendant justified discharge. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunctions remain in force
  • Defendant's application to discharge injunctions is dismissed