Richomme v Le Gros [1994] JLR_Note 9a (27 June 1994)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Family / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the age and sex of the child as relevant factors in deciding care and control.
02
Material facts
Parties
Richomme
ApplicantLe Gros
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Family / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Determination of care and control of a child considering age and sex
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey family law
In determining care and control of a child, the age and sex of the child are relevant factors.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the age and sex of the child as relevant factors in deciding care and control.
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 >> Richomme v Le Gros [1994] JLR_Note 9a (27 June 1994) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1994/JLR94N009a.html Cite as: [1994] JLR_Note 9a [ New search ] [ Help ] Richomme v Le Gros 1994 JLR Note 9a (27 June 1994) CHILDREN-care and control-age and sex of child 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: 1994 JLR Note 9a BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1994/JLR94N009a.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.