Jersey Case Law

MacLeod v The Channel Islands Cooperative Society Limited (Royal Court : Hearing

MacLeod v The Channel Islands Cooperative Society Limited (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Thompson : Personal injuries) [2025] JRC 321 (16 December 2025)

The Royal Court of Jersey refused to allow Mr MacLeod to advance a Wilkinson v Downton intentional harm claim, confining the case to negligence and duty of care issues.

• Psychological injury at work
• Duty of care
• Intentional harm
• Negligence
• Vicarious liability
• Pleadings

Read case analysis

MacLeod v The Channel Islands Cooperative Society Limited (Royal Court : Hearing

MacLeod v The Channel Islands Cooperative Society Limited (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil)) [2025] JRC 107 (24 April 2025)

The Royal Court of Jersey allowed the plaintiff to serve a witness statement out of time, finding the delay was explained and the evidence relevant, but excluded hearsay and opinion passages.

• Admission of late evidence
• Relief from sanctions
• Duty of care
• Bad faith allegations
• Statutory and contractual duties
• Hearsay evidence

Read case analysis

Le Sauteur and Sutherland v HM Attorney General

Le Sauteur and Sutherland v HM Attorney General [2024] JCA 224 (23 October 2024)

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal convictions for failing to take reasonable care for a patient’s health and safety, finding the verdict was supported by evidence.

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Appeals on fact
• Health and safety at work
• Paramedic liability
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

Chivers v Da Silva Araujo

On a preliminary issue in this road-traffic claim, the Royal Court held the defendant negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, while reserving contributory negligence.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Standard of driving
• Pedestrian crossing collisions
• Contributory negligence
• Cyclist safety

Read case analysis

Chivers v Da Silva Araujo

Chivers v Da Silva Araujo [2024] JRC 058 (13 March 2024)

The Royal Court found the defendant negligent after he failed to keep a proper lookout and struck a cyclist crossing at a signal-controlled crossing.

• Negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Pedestrian and cyclist accidents
• Road-traffic-accident

Read case analysis

Agarwal and Agarwal v Standard Chartered Bank Jersey Branch

Agarwal and Agarwal v Standard Chartered Bank Jersey Branch [2022] JRC 011 (19 January 2022)

The Jersey Royal Court granted specific discovery of a bank’s fraud policies, staff training, and warning notices in an APP fraud dispute.

• Duty of care
• Fraud
• Discovery
• Authorised push payment fraud
• Banking procedures
• Banking-law

Read case analysis

AG v States Employment Board 26-Mar-2021

AG v States Employment Board 26-Mar-2021 [2021] JRC 094 (26 March 2021)

The Jersey Royal Court fined the States Employment Board £80,000 for failing to keep a vulnerable patient safe, leading to serious injuries after roof access.

• Workplace safety
• Duty of care
• Sentencing guidelines
• Health-and-safety
• Sentencing
• Workplace-safety

Read case analysis

AG v States Employment Board

AG v States Employment Board [2020] JRC 089 (22 May 2020)

The States Employment Board was fined for a health and safety breach after a schoolchild was injured by a hazardous gate at Grouville School.

• Employer liability
• Duty of care
• Risk assessment
• Workplace safety
• School safety
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

Huda v Minister for Health and Social Services

Huda v Minister for Health and Social Services [2020] JRC 029 (17 February 2020)

The court allowed a misfeasance claim based on reckless indifference to proceed, but struck out targeted malice and negligence claims arising from a safeguarding referral.

• Misfeasance in public office
• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Safeguarding procedures
• Strike out applications
• Misfeasance-in-public-office

Read case analysis

Verga v Nedbank Private Wealth Ltd and Ors

Verga v Nedbank Private Wealth Ltd and Ors [2019] JRC 051 (28 March 2019)

The Royal Court struck out a plaintiff’s tort claim as time-barred and, alternatively, because the pleaded allegations were protected by absolute privilege and statutory immunity.

• Limitation period
• Absolute privilege
• Immunity
• Negligent misstatement
• Malicious prosecution
• Duty of care

Read case analysis