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
Bharti v. Jersey Comp. Auth. [2021] 1 JLR 240 (25 June 2021)
Judicial review concerning whether the Jersey Competition Authority’s decision was lawful.
ATF Overseas Hldgs -v- JCRA [2018] JRC 004 (08 January 2018)
The Royal Court upheld a competition appeal on the merits, holding that the aviation fuel supplier abused dominance by refusing resale supply and discriminatory pricing.
ATF Overseas v. JCRA [2018] 1 JLR 269 (08 January 2018)
Judicial review of a JCRA regulatory decision was dismissed after the court found the decision complied with statutory requirements and fairness principles.
Classic Herd v. Milk Mktg. Bd. [2014] 2 JLR 487 (11 November 2014)
The court treated the producer’s claim against the Milk Marketing Board as a tort claim for breach of statutory duty, not a contract claim, and applied a 3-year limitation period.
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.
Classic Herd Limited -v- Jersey Milk Marketing Board [2014] JRC 127 (10 June 2014)
Strike out application over milk marketing and competition claims. The court held two heads of claim were time-barred tort claims, but one payment claim was contractual and could proceed.
JT (Jersey) Ltd -v- Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority [2013] JRC 238 (29 November 2013)
The Royal Court of Jersey reviewed a licence modification requiring JT to provide Wholesale Line Rental and examined the appeal standard and consultation process.
Nautech -v- CSS Ltd and Others [2013] JRC 153 (31 July 2013)
The Jersey Royal Court refused a springboard injunction, holding the plaintiff had not shown the defendants needed to misused confidential information to compete, and existing injunctions were enough.
Explore more
