Yates v Reg's Skips [2007] JLR_Note 65 (11 December 2007)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the applicability of voisinage principles in the context of contract or quasi-contract.
02
Material facts
Parties
Yates
ApplicantReg's Skips
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the principles of voisinage apply in the context of contract or quasi-contract
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey law
Principles of voisinage may be relevant in contract or quasi-contract disputes.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the applicability of voisinage principles in the context of contract or quasi-contract.
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 >> Yates v Reg's Skips [2007] JLR_Note 65 (11 December 2007) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2007/JLR07N065.html Cite as: [2007] JLR_Note 65 [ New search ] [ Help ] Yates v Reg's Skips 2007 JLR Note 65 (11 December 2007) Contract-quasi-contract- voisinage 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: 2007 JLR Note 65 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2007/JLR07N065.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.