Sign in
Jersey Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Jersey Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Jersey decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Medical negligence [2021] JRC 264

Pickersgill v Young

Pickersgill v Young [2021] JRC 264 (15 October 2021)

The court refused a strike out and prescription application in a medical negligence claim, holding that contractual claims were not time-barred and tort claims were extended by valid agreement.

  • Limitation period
  • Prescription
  • EmpĂŞchement de fait
  • Abuse of process
  • Strike out application
  • Survival of actions against estates
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2015] JRC 058A

Hughes -v- Minister for Economic Development

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.

  • Leave to appeal
  • Locus standi
  • Limitation period
  • EmpĂŞchement de fait
  • Breach of statutory duty
  • Ownership of property
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2015] JRC 014

MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- C I Trustees and Others

MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- C I Trustees and Others [2015] JRC 014 (22 January 2015)

The Royal Court of Jersey refused to strike out claims as prescribed and declined to order a preliminary issue, holding the limitation question was fact-sensitive and should go to trial.

  • Limitation of actions
  • Prescription
  • EmpĂŞchement de droit
  • EmpĂŞchement de fait
  • Dishonest assistance
  • Negligence
Read case analysis
Contract law [1998] UR 167

1998/167 - Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu

1998/167 - Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1998] UR 167 (6 August 1998)

The court held that a negligence-based contract claim against former lawyers was prescribed, because the plaintiff’s ignorance of her rights did not suspend time.

  • Prescription
  • Limitation period
  • Contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio
  • EmpĂŞchement de fait
  • Failure to advise
  • Latent defect
Read case analysis
Limitation of actions [1998] JLR 305

Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu

Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1998] JLR 305 (06 August 1998)

The court held that mere ignorance of a cause of action does not suspend limitation; suspension requires practical impossibility of bringing the claim in time.

  • Running of time
  • Suspension of limitation
  • EmpĂŞchement de fait
  • Prescription
  • Limitation-of-actions
  • Running-of-time
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Jersey decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.