Q v R  JRC041 Jamie represented a wife in relation to a claim brought by the husband to vary his spousal maintenance obligations pursuant to a consent order. The husband claimed that his early retirement should act as a trigger to vary spousal maintenance. Jamie successfully defended the husband’s application in its entirety and was also successful in claiming the wife’s costs of the application back from the husband. https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/JRC041.aspx
C v D  JCA020 Jamie represented a mother in the Court of Appeal in relation to an application by her for her costs of the father’s withdrawn appeal. The father sought to appeal a fact find judgment heard before the Royal Court which was made in the midst of the father’s substantive application for contact. A final hearing had been set down which would have used the fact find judgment as the background to the contact application. Following the father’s appeal against the fact find judgment, the final hearing dates were vacated. Shortly thereafter the father then withdrew his appeal and it was held that the father made the appeal solely for the purpose of vacating the final hearing dates. Jamie was successful in claiming the mother’s costs from the father on an indemnity basis which is a very unusual order to be made within children’s proceedingshttps://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/JCA020.aspx
A v B  JCA098 Jamie represented a mother in the Court of Appeal in relation to the mother’s application for child maintenance. The “father” assumed legal responsibility for the child by way of a paternity declaration in Latvia although he asserted that he was not the biological father. The father claimed that the paternity declaration should not be recognised in Jersey and therefore no claim for child maintenance could be made against him. This was a novel and ground breaking case. The Court of Appeal rejected the father’s case and supported the mother’s position that the father was legally bound to pay child maintenance holding that the term “father” in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 did not only extend to biological and adoptive fathers. This case has now been appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the mother will again be represented by Jamie and Viberts. https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/JCA098.aspx
Q v R JRC168A Jamie acted for the husband who was appealing against an order for interim periodical payments. The husband had represented himself at the hearing before the Registrar in the lower court. Jamie was successful in the appeal application to overturn the interim maintenance payments on the basis that the Registrar had made inappropriate assumptions of the husband’s financial position. The order for periodical payments was, therefore, found to be unsafe and remitted back to the Registrar for redetermination.
U v V JRC155 Jamie acted for the wife in respect of defending the husband’s application to downwardly vary interim spousal maintenance payments pending a final hearing. This involved a complicated property development business (owned by the husband) together with extensive and complicated financial disclosure. Despite the lack of clarity in the husband’s financial position, Jamie was successful in defending his application.
A v B JRC262 This was a landmark case involving the interpretation of the term “parent” as defined under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. This was a complicated multi-jurisdictional case involving private international law. Jamie represented the mother (a Latvian national) and was ultimately successful in persuading the court that a non-biological father (from Jersey) could be held liable for child maintenance payments in respect of a child that resided outside of Jersey’s jurisdiction. The matter was appealed by the father to the Court of Appeal (see A v B JCA098), but Viberts were again successful in having that appeal dismissed.