Watson v Priddy [1977] JLR 145 (15 December 1977)

Watson v Priddy [1977] JLR 145 (15 December 1977)

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.

Citation
[1977] JLR 145
Parties
Applicant: Watson; Respondent: Priddy
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 December 1977
Procedural Posture
Family Law / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegitimate Children, Maintenance, Prescription Period
Family Law Illegitimate Children Maintenance Prescription Period

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Watson

Applicant

Priddy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is there a common law duty on the father to maintain an illegitimate child?
  2. 2 Is failure to maintain an illegitimate child a tort?
  3. 3 Does the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1960, art. 2 enlarge the prescription period for such claims?

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