Woodman v Viscount [1975] JJ 263 (18 September 1975)

Woodman v Viscount [1975] JJ 263 (18 September 1975)

It is uncertain whether the rules of fraudulent preference form part of Jersey common law, as it is arguable that only statute can invalidate a payment made by a debtor to a creditor in discharge of a debt.

Citation
[1975] JJ 263
Parties
Applicant: Woodman; Respondent: Viscount
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 September 1975
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Judgment
Outcome
uncertain; no definitive ruling on fraudulent preference under Jersey law
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preference, Creditor Rights, Common Law Vs Statute
Bankruptcy Fraudulent Preference Creditor Rights Common Law Vs Statute

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woodman

Applicant

Viscount

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rules of fraudulent preference are part of Jersey common law or require statutory basis to invalidate payments to creditors

Ratio Decidendi

It is uncertain whether the rules of fraudulent preference form part of Jersey common law, as it is arguable that only statute can invalidate a payment made by a debtor to a creditor in discharge of a debt.

Court Disposition

uncertain; no definitive ruling on fraudulent preference under Jersey law