Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Jersey’s New Private International Law Rules for Trusts

April 25, 2007/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

Professor Jonathan Harris has written an article in the Jersey Law Review entitled, “Jersey’s new private international law rules for trusts – a retrograde step?” (Jersey L.R. 2007, 11(1), 9-19). Here’s the abstract:

Discusses amendments made by the Trusts (Amendment No.4) (Jersey) Law 2006 to the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. Criticises difficulties with the amendments on the scope of application of matters which are to be determined exclusively by the law of Jersey and the non recognition of foreign judgments.

In the same issue, Daniel Hochberg defends the amendments with a rejoinder to Professor Harris’ article: “Jersey’s new private international law rules for trusts – a response.” (Jersey L.R. 2007, 11(1), 20-27).

Access to the Jersey L.R. is for those with a subscription.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2007-04-25 12:14:252007-04-25 15:34:43Jersey’s New Private International Law Rules for Trusts

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: The Meaning of Maintenance in the Brussels I Regulation Link to: The Meaning of Maintenance in the Brussels I Regulation The Meaning of Maintenance in the Brussels I Regulation Link to: ICLQ Articles on Harding v Wealands and the Law of Domicile Link to: ICLQ Articles on Harding v Wealands and the Law of Domicile ICLQ Articles on Harding v Wealands and the Law of Domicile
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top