January 26, 2026
In this case, Raw Mortgage Company Four Limited applied for an Acte Vicomte chargé d’écrire to formally notify the Debtors of their obligation to satisfy a debt of £4million, acknowledge by an Act of Court in January 2024. The total amount claimed, including interest and fees, exceeded £4.4million. The application was made without a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt.
Whilst the Court acknowledged the previous precedent set out in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96, that it was not always necessary for a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt, it declined to make the order immediately citing procedural concerns. It held that the debtors must be served with the application and draft order and given an opportunity to appear and contest the debt. The absence of prior notice and lack of a formal judgment were deemed significant, especially given the potential impact on other creditors and the integrity of the dégrèvement process.
This judgment underscores a tension in Jersey’s debt enforcement regime between procedural efficient and fairness. Whilst the decision in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 permitted an Acte Victome Chargé D’Ecrire to be obtained based upon a prior acknowledgement of the debt, the Court here rightly cautioned against bypassing debtor participation. The decision reflects a judicial preference for transparency and due process, particularly where significant sums and property rights are at stake.
The Royal Court noted that the interpretation applied in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 to the relevant provisions of the Loi (1832) sur les Décrets (as amended by the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014) may have been too broad and potentially undermined safeguards for debtors and other creditors. The Court’s insistence on summoning debtors before issuing such orders may signal a shift towards more rigorous scrutiny of applications under the dégrèvement regime.
This case also highlights the importance of clarity in creditor communications and the evidential burden when seeking enforcement without a judgment. Beneficiaries of hypothecs should be cautious in relying solely on historical acknowledgement of debt and should consider obtaining a formal judgment to avoid procedural challenges.
In this case, Raw Mortgage Company Four Limited applied for an Acte Vicomte chargé d’écrire to formally notify the Debtors of their obligation to satisfy a debt of £4million, acknowledge by an Act of Court in January 2024. The total amount claimed, including interest and fees, exceeded £4.4million. The application was made without a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt.
Whilst the Court acknowledged the previous precedent set out in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96, that it was not always necessary for a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt, it declined to make the order immediately citing procedural concerns. It held that the debtors must be served with the application and draft order and given an opportunity to appear and contest the debt. The absence of prior notice and lack of a formal judgment were deemed significant, especially given the potential impact on other creditors and the integrity of the dégrèvement process.
This judgment underscores a tension in Jersey’s debt enforcement regime between procedural efficient and fairness. Whilst the decision in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 permitted an Acte Victome Chargé D’Ecrire to be obtained based upon a prior acknowledgement of the debt, the Court here rightly cautioned against bypassing debtor participation. The decision reflects a judicial preference for transparency and due process, particularly where significant sums and property rights are at stake.
The Royal Court noted that the interpretation applied in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 to the relevant provisions of the Loi (1832) sur les Décrets (as amended by the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014) may have been too broad and potentially undermined safeguards for debtors and other creditors. The Court’s insistence on summoning debtors before issuing such orders may signal a shift towards more rigorous scrutiny of applications under the dégrèvement regime.
This case also highlights the importance of clarity in creditor communications and the evidential burden when seeking enforcement without a judgment. Beneficiaries of hypothecs should be cautious in relying solely on historical acknowledgement of debt and should consider obtaining a formal judgment to avoid procedural challenges.
In this case, Raw Mortgage Company Four Limited applied for an Acte Vicomte chargé d’écrire to formally notify the Debtors of their obligation to satisfy a debt of £4million, acknowledge by an Act of Court in January 2024. The total amount claimed, including interest and fees, exceeded £4.4million. The application was made without a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt.
Whilst the Court acknowledged the previous precedent set out in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96, that it was not always necessary for a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt, it declined to make the order immediately citing procedural concerns. It held that the debtors must be served with the application and draft order and given an opportunity to appear and contest the debt. The absence of prior notice and lack of a formal judgment were deemed significant, especially given the potential impact on other creditors and the integrity of the dégrèvement process.
This judgment underscores a tension in Jersey’s debt enforcement regime between procedural efficient and fairness. Whilst the decision in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 permitted an Acte Victome Chargé D’Ecrire to be obtained based upon a prior acknowledgement of the debt, the Court here rightly cautioned against bypassing debtor participation. The decision reflects a judicial preference for transparency and due process, particularly where significant sums and property rights are at stake.
The Royal Court noted that the interpretation applied in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 to the relevant provisions of the Loi (1832) sur les Décrets (as amended by the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014) may have been too broad and potentially undermined safeguards for debtors and other creditors. The Court’s insistence on summoning debtors before issuing such orders may signal a shift towards more rigorous scrutiny of applications under the dégrèvement regime.
This case also highlights the importance of clarity in creditor communications and the evidential burden when seeking enforcement without a judgment. Beneficiaries of hypothecs should be cautious in relying solely on historical acknowledgement of debt and should consider obtaining a formal judgment to avoid procedural challenges.
In this case, Raw Mortgage Company Four Limited applied for an Acte Vicomte chargé d’écrire to formally notify the Debtors of their obligation to satisfy a debt of £4million, acknowledge by an Act of Court in January 2024. The total amount claimed, including interest and fees, exceeded £4.4million. The application was made without a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt.
Whilst the Court acknowledged the previous precedent set out in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96, that it was not always necessary for a formal judgment condemning the Debtors to pay the debt, it declined to make the order immediately citing procedural concerns. It held that the debtors must be served with the application and draft order and given an opportunity to appear and contest the debt. The absence of prior notice and lack of a formal judgment were deemed significant, especially given the potential impact on other creditors and the integrity of the dégrèvement process.
This judgment underscores a tension in Jersey’s debt enforcement regime between procedural efficient and fairness. Whilst the decision in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 permitted an Acte Victome Chargé D’Ecrire to be obtained based upon a prior acknowledgement of the debt, the Court here rightly cautioned against bypassing debtor participation. The decision reflects a judicial preference for transparency and due process, particularly where significant sums and property rights are at stake.
The Royal Court noted that the interpretation applied in Representation of Alfalfa Investment Limited [2020] (1) JLR 96 to the relevant provisions of the Loi (1832) sur les Décrets (as amended by the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014) may have been too broad and potentially undermined safeguards for debtors and other creditors. The Court’s insistence on summoning debtors before issuing such orders may signal a shift towards more rigorous scrutiny of applications under the dégrèvement regime.
This case also highlights the importance of clarity in creditor communications and the evidential burden when seeking enforcement without a judgment. Beneficiaries of hypothecs should be cautious in relying solely on historical acknowledgement of debt and should consider obtaining a formal judgment to avoid procedural challenges.