Return to Consultation paper
Notes relating to Section 2
1 Commissioners' Report (1861), 7824. The evidence of John William Dupré who refers to the form of cession "in our earlier records". The whole of this section of the Commissioners' Report is instructive as to the pre 1880 law.
2 This differed from the position in Normandy, where cession was followed by an accounting in which the debtor was repaid any credit balance after payment of the debts, but remained liable for the unpaid balance if there was a shortfall. See Poingdestre, Lois et Coutumes, 282.
3 Code Le Geyt, Liv.4e, Tit.viii, Art.3. However, Le Geyt himself knew of no case where this had actually happened (Constitution, Lois et Usages, II.131). See also Poingdestre, Lois et Coutumes, 280-4.
4 Loi (1832) sur les Décrets, Art.10.
5 For further details and citations see Matthews & Nicolle, The Jersey Law of Property, 7. 12 -14.
6 See, e.g., Norris v. Emprunt (Jersey) Ltd (1990), cited in Matthews & Nicolle at 7.4, 7.13-14.
7 Loi (1832) sur ies Décrets, Art.1. The exception in the case of a debtor who is in prison and has been reduced to 'short commons' (i.e. bread and water) no longer applies because, though imprisonment for debt is still possible (as in Norris v. Emprunt (Jersey) Ltd), the reduction of prisoners to short commons is now obsolete.
8 Ibid., Arts.8, 10.
9 Loi (1904) (Amendment No.2) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.2. As long as it was possible for any immoveables to have been owned by the debtor since before 1880, these were subject to décret. According to Le Gros, if there are no immoveables the Court appoints the Viscount to realise the moveable assets (Droit Coutumier de Jersey, 305).
10 Loi (1832) sur les Décrets, Arts.22, 44.
11 Ibid., Art.2.
12 Commissioners' Report (1861), 7681.
13 This was the view taken by the Court in Le Maistre v. du Feu (1850) 171 Ex.508.
14 Loi (1880) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.47.
15 Loi (1915) sur la Propriété Foncière (Garanties), Arts.l-2.
16 Ibid., Arts.3-4 et seq.
17 Re doléance Barker, 1985-86 J.L.R.284 at 292 quoted in Matthews & Nicolle at para 7.27
18 Loi (1839) sur les Remises de Biens, Art.1.
19 Ibid., Arts.2-3.
20 Ibid., Arts.4-5.
21 See Matthews & Nicolle, 7.25-6, and authorities there cited.
22 Le Geyt, Constitution, Lois et Usages, 1.390.
23 Loi (1839) sur les Remises de Biens, Art.6.
24 Commissioners' Report (1861), 10673-5.
j Re remise Barker, 4 Dec.1986, affirmed C.A. 1987-88 J.L.R.23.
26 Ex parte Greffier, re Mauger (1870) 195 Ex.37.
27 Exceptionally, where it is not practicable for all the contracts to be passed together, the difficulty may be circumvented by making all the creditors party to each contract of sale, as in the remise of R. Malet de Carteret (1976-8).
28 Deacon v. Bower (1978) J.J.39.
29 Re Barker, 1985-86 J.L.R.186.
30 R.P.Marett, Lettre Explicative (1878), quoted in Matthews & Nicolle, 7.31. The rule that each corps de bien-fonds is to be dégrévé separately has since been made subject to certain exceptions: Loi (1904) sur la Propriété Foncière, Arts. 17-18.
31 Ibid., Art.2.
32 New Guarantee Trust Finance Ltd v. Birbeck (1980) J.J.117, on appeal Birbeck v. Midland Bank Ltd (1981) J.J.121.
33 Loi (1880) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.92.
34 Re Moorhouse (1952) 247 Ex.519, 248 Ex.6.
35 Loi (1880) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.98, and see re Carpenter (1917) 230 Ex.8.
36 Loi (1880) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.95.
37 Ibid., Art.102, and see Matthews & Nicolle, 7.43.
38 Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990, Art.4(2).
39 Loi (1904) sur la Propriété Foncière, Art.2.
40 Before the 1990 law came into force it was possible for dégrèvement proceedings to be instituted against a debtor's immoveable property after his moveables had been declared en désastre. In that case, since the moveables were in the hands of the Viscount, a réalisation was not required unless the debtor owned rentes or conventional hypothecs to receive, which, being immoveables, were outside the scope of the désastre. This contingency has been removed by the 1990 law, and the special provision made for it in the law of 1904 (Art.9) has been repealed.
41 Loi (1904) sur la Propriété Foncière, Arts.5, 8, 10-13. It is not however unknown for the law to be 'ignored' and for the court to order the attournés to pay the creditors direct and to pay over the balance to the debtor.
42 Ibid, Art.15.
43 Re Désastre Overseas Insurance Brokers Ltd (1966) J.J.547 at 552.
44 Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990, Art.l(6).
45 Ibid., Art.3, as amended by Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 1995, Art.1.
46 Bankruptcy Law 1990, Art.4.
47 See Matthews & Nicolle, 7.59, where they say "Whether the title as well as possession of moveables vested in the Viscount has never been decided, although the opinion has been expressed that it does (A Debtor, exparte the Viscount  Ch 384 at 401 B-I). Similarly, the question whether possession of assets situated outside Jersey so vests has also never been decided, though again the view has been expressed that it does (ibid 401 G B 402D)."
48 Bankruptcy Law 1990, Art.8, and see Matthews & Nicolle, 7.61.
49 Bankruptcy Law 1990, Arts.9, 11-14.
50 Ibid., Arts.15-16.
51 Ibid., Arts.30-37.
52 Ibid., Art.26.
53 Ibid., Arts 18, 20-21.
54 Matthews & Nicolle, 7.80.
55 Bankruptcy Law 1990, Arts.39-42.
56 Ibid., Art.38(2). For discussion of this somewhat draconian measure see Matthews & Nicolle, 7.82.
57 Bankruptcy Law 1990, Art.45.
58 Ibid., Art.24.
59 Ibid., Arts.43-4.
Return to Consultation paper