Perkins (Née Routier) v Perkins

Core Citations

DOES NOT FOLLOW

• White v White

REFERS TO

• ELWELL v KNIGHT [Royal Ct]
• King v King

CONSIDERS

• Cooper v Cooper (No. 1)
• Le Brocq v Le Brocq
• Gollins v Gollins

CITES

• Lauder v Lauder

APPLIES

• Ingram v Ingram
• URQUHART v WALLACE [CA (Jersey)]

REPORTED OPINION OF in

• [1987] JLR 372

CITED in

• ELWELL v KNIGHT [Royal Ct]

This document cites

• Le Brocq v Le Brocq
• Gollins v Gollins
• Gollins v Gollins
• Wright v Wright
• King v King



See all quotations

• Rabet v Richomme
• Lauder v Lauder
• SKILLETT v FARAMUS [Royal Ct]
• WESTON v BOYERS and JANES [Royal Ct]
• Ingram v Ingram
• Cooper v Cooper (No. 1)
• Ivens v Ivens
• ELWELL v KNIGHT [Royal Ct]
• MOIGNARD v CAMPBELL [Royal Ct]
• GIBBS v WILLIAMS [Royal Ct]
• White v White
• URQUHART v WALLACE [CA (Jersey)]
• Boyd v Boyd
• Bosworthick v Bosworthick