Jersey has a developed and sophisticated body of law which plays a key role in attracting international business to the Island. However, the size of the jurisdiction inevitably means that the number of cases coming before its courts is limited, particularly in “domestic” areas such as property law. Over the past few decades there have been very long stretches without any decisions of significance. Of course, the resolution of disputes between parties without the courts having to pronounce on the issues at stake is in many ways to be welcomed – litigation is best avoided if possible – but the consequence is that important points of law can remain unclear.

For those of us who advise on property law, the last few years have, however, seen a number of cases of significance, with the courts clarifying the law in a number of areas, including rights of way, co-ownership, the rights and duties of neighbours and the position of unmarried partners.

Fogarty v St Martin’s Cottage

2016 was another fruitful year in this regard, not least because of the Court of Appeal decision in Fogarty v St Martin’s Cottage, a dispute between neighbours regarding alleged encroachments. Encroachment covers not only building on a neighbour’s land but also not leaving a 16 ½ inch offset from the boundary or having a window or other opening less than two feet nine inches from the boundary. It is a topic which has always been something of an obsession for Jersey property lawyers and conveyancers, and for good reason: previous court decisions have made clear that the only remedy available to the court was to order demolition of the offending item, however minor or unintentional the encroachment.

In Fogarty, the Royal Court decided in 2015 that in certain appropriate cases the court could order the payment of damages in lieu of demolition. In fact, the Court of Appeal was able, applying a separate legal principle, to decide that the owner of the offending structures had the legal right to keep them in situ. However, the Court of Appeal made clear that it endorsed the Royal Court’s position regarding the availability of damages. Although demolition is the default remedy, the court has the power to award damages “where such is required in order to achieve the interests of justice.”

Encroaching structures

Another aspect of the Fogarty decision is particularly noteworthy. Having decided that there was a legal right for the “encroaching” structures to remain, the Court of Appeal decided that accessory to that right was the right to enter upon the other party’s land for the purpose of maintaining the structures in case of necessity. In similar vein, the Royal Court had in another 2016 case, Venturini v Ghyll Limited, allowed a neighbour access over the land of another to carry out repairs in circumstances of necessity. In that case, the court found that a steep bank was at severe risk of sudden collapse, which threatened substantial damage to the neighbour on lower land, a risk of which the owner of the higher land was fully aware and had done nothing to address. In such circumstances, rather than wait for damage or injury to occur, the court decided that it must have the power to permit the owner/occupier of the lower lying land to take steps to prevent or minimise the risk, prima facie at the cost of the owner/occupier of the higher lying land.

In these and other recent property cases, the Jersey courts have shown themselves to be admirably keen to develop the customary law by applying established legal principles in an appropriately flexible and pragmatic manner. Long may this trend continue.

First published in CONNECT Magazine, March 2017

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
17 May 2023

More changes to Jersey's Anti-Money Laundering Regime (AML)

Our experts look at latest proposals to the legal and regulatory anti-money laundering framework in ...

Contributors: Gemma Palmer
10 May 2023

Establishing a single family office in Jersey

Want to know more about establishing a family office in Jersey? Find out what a family office is and...

27 Apr 2023

Change of control of regulated entities in Jersey

Find out how Appleby Jersey has advised upon a number of changes of control scenarios in different c...

20 Mar 2023

Trusts: Comparison between the Crown Dependencies

Our Private Client and Trusts specialists in Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey outline some of the ke...

Contributors: Paula Fry, Melissa Wong
15 Mar 2023

Changes to the Jersey Competition Law Framework

Following the launch of the Government of Jersey's consultation on proposed changes to the competiti...

14 Mar 2023

Jersey Property Unit Trusts and the Trust Regulation Service

Our Appleby team looks at HMRC's recently updated guidance on Jersey Property Unit Trusts (JPUTs) an...

23 Feb 2023

Enforcement of security under the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 2012

Find out more about why the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 2012 (2012 Law) makes Jersey popular as ...

22 Feb 2023

Listing Variable Funding Notes (VFNs) on The International Stock Exchange (TISE)

This article explores what a Variable Funding Note is and offers an introduction to what is required...

9 Feb 2023

Listing High Yield Bonds on the International Stock Exchange (TISE)

High Yield Bond issuers and their advisers continue to favour listing on The International Stock Exc...

1 Feb 2023

Fund Finance Laws and Regulations 2023 - Jersey

Fund finance is growing in Jersey. As an international financial centre (IFC) of choice for global i...

Contributors: Paul Worsnop, Daniel Healy