Prescription Flashcards
(15 cards)
Q: What is the general prescriptive period for contract claims under Jersey law?
A: Ten years.
Cue Card 2
Q: Which case firmly established the ten-year period for contractual prescription in Jersey, citing Le Geyt’s authority?
A: Albright v Harrison.
Q: Which judgment clarified that the ten-year period applies to all personal actions and actions concerning movables unless a different period has already been established?
A: Re Esteem Settlement (2002).
Q: According to Re Esteem Settlement (2002), when would the thirty-year period apply?
A: Only in specific scenarios, such as claims for déception d’outre moitié or other actions where a thirty-year period is established by prior judicial decision or statute.
Q: What is the main point of uncertainty regarding the ten-year period in contract claims?
A: The date on which the period starts to run (the “accrual date”)—whether it is always from the date of breach or possibly from a discovery date in the future.
Q: Which case indicated that the ten-year prescription period likely commences from the date of breach (rather than the date of discovery)?
A: Public Services Committee v Maynard suggested this, and later Boyd v Pickersgill and Pickersgill v Ellis [2021] reinforced that, so far, the rule is the date of breach.
Q: Has the question of whether “reasonable discoverability” might apply in future cases been definitively settled by the Jersey courts?
A: No. The courts have left open the possibility for a future decision to address “reasonable discoverability.”
Q: Under Jersey law, what is an empêchement d’agir?
A: It is an impediment preventing a claimant from bringing proceedings, which can suspend the running of prescription.
Q: What is the difference between an empêchement de droit and an empêchement de fait?
A:
Empêchement de droit is a legal impediment (e.g. the claimant is a minor or lacks mental capacity).
Empêchement de fait is a practical impediment (e.g. war, imprisonment under certain circumstances), making it objectively impossible for the claimant to bring the action.
Q: What principle did the Court of Appeal endorse in Public Services Committee v Maynard that can suspend prescription?
A: Contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio (“prescription does not run against one who cannot act”).
Q: According to Boyd v Pickersgill, what is the test for deciding whether an empêchement de fait applies?
A: It is an objective test of whether it was “practically impossible” for the claimant, in their circumstances, to bring the claim.
Q: Can mere ignorance of the law (i.e. not knowing you have a legal remedy) generally suspend prescription under Jersey law?
A: No. Ignorance of the law typically does not suspend prescription, unless policy considerations in very rare situations demand otherwise.
Q: Does ignorance of facts that give rise to a cause of action ever suspend prescription?
A: It can, provided the claimant could not have reasonably discovered those facts.
Q: Which action by a claimant definitively stops the clock on prescription (i.e. suspends the period)?
A: The service and tabling (filing) of a summons or Order of Justice.
Q: Why did the Jersey Law Commission issue consultation papers in 2008 and 2023 about limitation and prescription?
A: Because the current rules, spread across various cases, are seen as unsatisfactory and potentially in need of reform.
