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
Walker v Egerton-Vernon [2014] 1 JLR 182 (24 January 2014)
The court considered whether empêchement d'agir suspended prescription in a trust claim and held it did not apply before the trust company’s incorporation.
Gale and Clarke v Rockhampton Apart and Anor 13-Dec-2006 [2006] JRC 189A (13 December 2006)
The Royal Court held that voisinage is part of Jersey law and that claims based on it are prescribed after ten years, not three.
Jersey F.S.C. v A.P. Black (Jersey) Ltd. [2002] JLR 443 (13 September 2002)
The court held that a Jersey Financial Services Commission action under Article 20(7) of the Collective Investment Funds (Jersey) Law 1998 was a public law regulatory power, not a tort claim, so no prescription period applied.
JFSC v Black [2002] JRC 77 (11 April 2002)
The Jersey Royal Court held that an Article 20(7) CIF Law claim is founded on tort and is subject to the three-year prescription period in the 1960 Law.
Maynard v Psc [1995] JLR 65 (17 March 1995)
In this Jersey tort limitation case, the court held that prescription runs from the first date damages could be awarded, even if the latent injury was unknown.
Racz v Perrier & Labesse [1979] JLR 151 (02 November 1979)
The court held that failing to table a billet in time under Royal Court Rules 1968 r.6/5 amounts to discontinuance, and does not interrupt prescription.
Goodwin Estates (Jersey) Ltd. v Le Gros [1978] JLR 115 (10 July 1978)
The court held that, where failure to pay interest makes bond capital fall due, prescription for recovering the capital runs from the first missed interest payment.
Watson v Priddy [1977] JLR 145 (15 December 1977)
The court held that a father has a common law duty to maintain an illegitimate child, but failure to do so is not a tort and the claim was time-barred.
La Roque Methodist Chapel v Sewerage Bd. [1974] JJ 71 (25 September 1974)
The court held that an offer to consider an ex gratia payment did not acknowledge liability and did not extend the limitation period.
Explore more
