November 10, 2025
This case concerned the enforcement of a judicial hypothec over a property owned by a debtor who had defaulted on a loan made by the Representor.
The Representator sought an order for renunciation and a degrévèment of this specific property. The Viscount argued that under the Loi (1832) sur les décrets renunciation and degrévèment must apply to all of a debtor’s property. However, the Representor contented that the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere (the law that introduced the degrévèment process) introduced a more flexible enforcement mechanism.
The Court examined the statutory provisions included Sir Robert Marrett’s Lettre Explicative, together with commentators of Jersey and Norman Customary law which supported the notion of degrévèment “par pieces” (by parcels). The Court also noted previous case law including Birbeck v Midland Bank [1981] JJ 221 and Degrévèment of Powell [2019] JCA 101 which reinforced the view that specific hypothecation and enforcement was permissible.
The Court ultimately held that degrévèment of a single immovable property is lawful where that property is subject to a specific judicial hypothec. This interpretation was deemed consistent with both the spirit and text of the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere and the broader principles of justice and practicality. The Court subsequently ordered the renunciation and degrévèment of the specified property only.
This decision provides judicial confirmation of a view that was already shared by many practitioners that a degrévèment could be ordered over a specified property, provided that property was subject to a specific hypothec.
This case concerned the enforcement of a judicial hypothec over a property owned by a debtor who had defaulted on a loan made by the Representor.
The Representator sought an order for renunciation and a degrévèment of this specific property. The Viscount argued that under the Loi (1832) sur les décrets renunciation and degrévèment must apply to all of a debtor’s property. However, the Representor contented that the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere (the law that introduced the degrévèment process) introduced a more flexible enforcement mechanism.
The Court examined the statutory provisions included Sir Robert Marrett’s Lettre Explicative, together with commentators of Jersey and Norman Customary law which supported the notion of degrévèment “par pieces” (by parcels). The Court also noted previous case law including Birbeck v Midland Bank [1981] JJ 221 and Degrévèment of Powell [2019] JCA 101 which reinforced the view that specific hypothecation and enforcement was permissible.
The Court ultimately held that degrévèment of a single immovable property is lawful where that property is subject to a specific judicial hypothec. This interpretation was deemed consistent with both the spirit and text of the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere and the broader principles of justice and practicality. The Court subsequently ordered the renunciation and degrévèment of the specified property only.
This decision provides judicial confirmation of a view that was already shared by many practitioners that a degrévèment could be ordered over a specified property, provided that property was subject to a specific hypothec.
This case concerned the enforcement of a judicial hypothec over a property owned by a debtor who had defaulted on a loan made by the Representor.
The Representator sought an order for renunciation and a degrévèment of this specific property. The Viscount argued that under the Loi (1832) sur les décrets renunciation and degrévèment must apply to all of a debtor’s property. However, the Representor contented that the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere (the law that introduced the degrévèment process) introduced a more flexible enforcement mechanism.
The Court examined the statutory provisions included Sir Robert Marrett’s Lettre Explicative, together with commentators of Jersey and Norman Customary law which supported the notion of degrévèment “par pieces” (by parcels). The Court also noted previous case law including Birbeck v Midland Bank [1981] JJ 221 and Degrévèment of Powell [2019] JCA 101 which reinforced the view that specific hypothecation and enforcement was permissible.
The Court ultimately held that degrévèment of a single immovable property is lawful where that property is subject to a specific judicial hypothec. This interpretation was deemed consistent with both the spirit and text of the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere and the broader principles of justice and practicality. The Court subsequently ordered the renunciation and degrévèment of the specified property only.
This decision provides judicial confirmation of a view that was already shared by many practitioners that a degrévèment could be ordered over a specified property, provided that property was subject to a specific hypothec.
This case concerned the enforcement of a judicial hypothec over a property owned by a debtor who had defaulted on a loan made by the Representor.
The Representator sought an order for renunciation and a degrévèment of this specific property. The Viscount argued that under the Loi (1832) sur les décrets renunciation and degrévèment must apply to all of a debtor’s property. However, the Representor contented that the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere (the law that introduced the degrévèment process) introduced a more flexible enforcement mechanism.
The Court examined the statutory provisions included Sir Robert Marrett’s Lettre Explicative, together with commentators of Jersey and Norman Customary law which supported the notion of degrévèment “par pieces” (by parcels). The Court also noted previous case law including Birbeck v Midland Bank [1981] JJ 221 and Degrévèment of Powell [2019] JCA 101 which reinforced the view that specific hypothecation and enforcement was permissible.
The Court ultimately held that degrévèment of a single immovable property is lawful where that property is subject to a specific judicial hypothec. This interpretation was deemed consistent with both the spirit and text of the Loi (1880) sur la propriété fonciere and the broader principles of justice and practicality. The Court subsequently ordered the renunciation and degrévèment of the specified property only.
This decision provides judicial confirmation of a view that was already shared by many practitioners that a degrévèment could be ordered over a specified property, provided that property was subject to a specific hypothec.