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
C v D [2013] 1 JLR_Note 11 (14 March 2013)
Family law note on an application to vary a financial provision order, indicating the court’s discretion to vary such orders in Jersey proceedings.
Gibbins -v- AG [2012] JRC 001 (03 January 2012)
On review of a compensation order, the Jersey Royal Court discharged the default sentence after finding Mr Gibbins had suffered a substantial, unexpected reduction in means.
H v G [2002] JRC 179 (01 October 2002)
Matrimonial finance appeal on whether a ÂŁ100,000 lump sum should be paid immediately or partly deferred, with pension and housing needs considered.
1998/242 - The State of Qatar v Al-Thani [1998] UR 242 (1 December 1998)
The Commissioner distinguished Krohn v Varna Shipyard and was prepared to hear argument on varying a disclosure order to cover asset value and location.
Boudin v Smith [1995] JLR_Note 15a (23 June 1995)
A Jersey Law Reports note on variation of financial provision, emphasizing that the court must consider the “net effect” when assessing a variation application.
V v O (No. 2) [1989] JLR 145 (05 April 1989)
The court held that it had power under article 32 of the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law, 1949 to vary an order relating to real property made under article 29A.
V v O [1989] JLR 118 (04 April 1989)
The court held that, under r.52 of the Matrimonial Causes (General) (Jersey) Rules 1979, an affidavit of means may be filed by the hearing, not necessarily with the application.
T v H [1987] JLR_Note 14a (09 January 1987)
A Jersey note on variation of financial provision orders, stating that applications are to be considered de novo.
H v T [1985] JLR_Note 13b (04 June 1985)
Family law note on variation of financial provision, considering whether a change in the respondent’s means justifies revisiting the order.
Doucet v Hancock [1982] JLR 237 (25 November 1982)
In a family law variation application, the court held that financial provision may be varied only where the change in circumstances was wholly unforeseen.
Explore more
