Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Jersey decisions
Decisions matching the current search
AG -v- Rosenlund and FNB International Trustees Ltd [2015] JRC 186 (09 September 2015)
The Royal Court held that, for registering an external confiscation order, Jersey law is applied as at the date of application, not the date of the conduct.
Hughes -v- Minister for Economic Development [2015] JRC 058A (20 March 2015)
Leave to appeal was refused in a harbour-fees dispute over a vessel sold by auction. The court held the claim was prescribed and no empĂŞchement de fait applied.
Classic Herd Ltd -v- Jersey Milk Marketing Board [2014] JRC 217 (11 November 2014)
The Jersey Royal Court held that Classic Herd’s claims were prescribed as breach of statutory duty claims, dismissed the appeal, allowed the cross-appeal, and struck out the order of justice.
AG -v- De Sousa Freitas [2009] JRC 176 (08 September 2009)
The Jersey Royal Court held that Article 98 of the 2003 Law applied only to Royal Court proceedings, so the Magistrate’s Court could not permit live television-link evidence from outside Jersey.
Warren and Others v AG [2009] JCA 175 (04 September 2009)
The Court of Appeal held that a 2009 Jersey law did not retrospectively बदल the defendants’ already-elected jury trial for conspiracy to evade drug import controls.
AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 166 (19 August 2009)
The Jersey Royal Court held that Article 1 of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 requires pre-commencement conspiracy defendants to be tried by judge and jurats, not jury.
AG v Smith [2004] JRC 168A (23 September 2004)
The Royal Court held that Article 3(2) of Jersey’s Proceeds of Crime Law does not bar confiscation for post-Law offences simply because the indictment also includes pre-Law offences.
Representation of Leigh Francis Mauger [2000] JRC 65 (12 April 2000)
The Royal Court held that a detention order for suspected drug money had expired before renewal, so later orders were invalid and forfeiture could not proceed.
Shirley v Deputy Viscount [1999] JLR 256 (30 September 1999)
The case addresses when subsidiary legislation may be used to interpret a statute, holding that such rules can aid interpretation where the statute is ambiguous.
Att. Gen v Howard [1974] JJ 105 (04 October 1974)
The court held that omissions in criminal and penal statutes are not supplied by the court, and no penalty may be imposed unless the wording clearly requires it.
Explore more
