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

  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • 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
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