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
Skinner and Skinner -v- Minister for Infrastructure [2017] JRC 035 (28 February 2017)
The Royal Court discharged an ex parte interim injunction over disputed land after finding the plaintiffs had failed to make full and frank disclosure.
Nautech Servs. v CSS Ltd. [2013] 1 JLR 462 (13 May 2013)
The court gave procedural guidance on ex parte Anton Piller orders, stressing full and frank disclosure and use of the least intrusive order necessary.
Nautech -v- CSS Ltd and Others [2013] JRC 089 (13 May 2013)
The Royal Court of Jersey discharged an Anton Piller order after finding it too draconian, inadequately disclosed, and improperly executed against former employees.
The Royal Court held that ex parte injunctions based on rumour and suspicion would likely have been lifted, and ordered the defendants’ costs on the indemnity basis.
Devy -v- Taylor 24 Aug-2011 [2011] JRC 165 (24 August 2011)
The Royal Court lifted an ex parte caveat over Mr Devy’s property after finding the applicants had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material documents.
Publicis Graphics -v- Assad [2011] JRC 099 (16 May 2011)
The Jersey Royal Court held that Mr Assad breached trustee duties by failing to act as directed, and ordered him to pay indemnity costs.
Syvret v Benest [2010] JLR_Note 48 (18 October 2010)
A Jersey Law Reports note restating the guidelines applicable to ex parte interlocutory injunctions.
Close Finance v King [2008] JRC 151 (15 September 2008)
The Royal Court refused to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, holding the plaintiff’s disclosure was sufficiently full and frank despite alleged omissions.
MacKinnon -v- Crill 9-Nov-2006 [2006] JRC 159 (09 November 2006)
The Royal Court of Jersey refused to lift a caveat over an applicant’s half-share in Oaklands, holding the caveat was properly issued and disclosure was adequate.
Goldtron Ltd. v Most Invs. Ltd. [2002] JLR 424 (09 August 2002)
The court discharged a Mareva injunction after finding the ex parte applicant had not made full and frank disclosure of known potential defences.
Explore more
