Watson v Priddy [1977] JLR 145 (15 December 1977)
- Citation
- [1977] JLR 145
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Family Law / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Family Law / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that while there is a common law duty on the father to maintain an illegitimate child, failure to do so is not a tort, and therefore the prescription period is not enlarged by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2. The action must be brought within a year and a day of the child's birth.
Court disposition
claim dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Watson
ApplicantPriddy
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Is there a common law duty on the father to maintain an illegitimate child?
- 02
Is failure to maintain an illegitimate child a tort?
- 03
Does the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2 enlarge the prescription period for such claims?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued for the father's duty to maintain the illegitimate child and sought to extend the prescription period under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that failure to maintain an illegitimate child is not a tort and that the prescription period is not enlarged by the cited statute.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey common law
Common law imposes a duty on the father to maintain an illegitimate child.
- 02
Jersey common law
Failure to maintain an illegitimate child is not a tort.
- 03
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2 does not enlarge the prescription period for non-tort claims.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that while there is a common law duty on the father to maintain an illegitimate child, failure to do so is not a tort, and therefore the prescription period is not enlarged by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2. The action must be brought within a year and a day of the child's birth.
Court disposition
claim dismissed
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 >> Watson v Priddy [1977] JLR 145 (15 December 1977) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1977/JLR770145.html Cite as: [1977] JLR 145 [ New search ] [ Help ] Watson v Priddy 1977 JLR 145 (15 December 1977) Family Law-children-illegitimate children-pension alimentaire-common law duty on father to maintain illegitimate child but not tortious to fail to do so-since not tort personnel, prescription period not enlarged by Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2 and action to be brought within year and day of birth 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: 1977 JLR 145 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1977/JLR770145.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.