Jeremy Heywood

A rising star with a flair for advocacy

– Legal 500 2017
Jeremy Heywood

People

Jeremy is a Partner, Advocate and head of the Litigation Team.

He is an experienced civil and commercial litigator with particular expertise in immovable property disputes (including planning), contentious trusts, insured risks, and commercial disputes. He appears regularly before all the Island’s courts.

Jeremy is regularly instructed by local and international insurers, law firms, companies and private individuals, as well as by government departments and ministers.

Jeremy has twice been appointed by the Royal Court to act as amicus curiae to present legal arguments to the Royal Court on points of general public importance, such as issues concerning interest rates and the cost of legal proceedings.

 

 

What the directories say

Jeremy is listed as a Next Generation Lawyer in the Legal 500 2017 Rankings. (Offshore – Dispute Resolution)

‘Very responsive and user friendly’ – Legal 500 2016

Jeremy was described by the Legal 500, 2015 as a “rising star“. In 2014, the same publication noted him as “a young and capable Advocate.”

 

Professional Background

Jeremy graduated from the University of St. Andrews in 2003 with an MA in Ancient History. Following a period living and working in France, Jeremy obtained a Postgraduate Diploma in Law from City University, London, in 2006. He completed the Bar Vocational Course at the Inns of Court School of Law and was called to the English Bar in 2007. He is a non-practising barrister.

In 2008, Jeremy moved to Jersey to work as an associate in the litigation department at Appleby Global. Jeremy qualified as an Advocate of the Royal Court of Jersey in September 2010. Jeremy joined our predecessor firm, David Benest Law, on its foundation in 2013, and was made a partner there in 2015.

Jeremy is a fluent French speaker.

Professional Memberships

Jeremy is a Member of The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple and is also a member of the Law Society of Jersey and the Governing Body of the Jersey Institute of Law.

Testimonials 

“All through this claim, I have been very pleased with everything that Jeremy, Thomas, and Ben have done for me. My stress and worries have eased so much, so a very big ‘thank you’ to all of you.”

– Litigation Client 2019

Notable cases

PROPERTY AND PLANNING

Boyle-v-Highfield Country Apartments Association 29-Sep-2017 [2017]JRC157
Jeremy appeared at trial for the defendant Association in defence of a claim by a member of the Association in relation to ownership of a parcel of land. The case involved consideration of the principles of contractual interpretation in Jersey law and the nature of property rights created under the Loi (1991) sur la copropriété des immeubles bâtis.

Fogarty-v-St Martin’s Cottage Limited 20-Jun-2017 [2017]JCA096
Jeremy appeared for the plaintiff before the Court of Appeal, with David Benest, in respect of the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council.

Fogarty-v-St Martin’s Cottage Ltd 30-Nov-2016 [2016]JCA222
Jeremy and David Benest, appeared before the Court of Appeal to represent the plaintiff in respect of the costs orders to be made following the plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the law in relation to costs generally and the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to interfere with costs orders made by the Royal Court. In the course of its consideration the Court of Appeal cited with approval the decision of the Court of Appeal in Flynn v. Reid [2012 (2) JLR 226], in which Jeremy also appeared.

Fogarty-v-St Martin’s Cottage Limited 23-Sep-2016[2016]JCA180
David Benest and Jeremy Heywood appeared for the appellant before the Court of Appeal. This was a dispute as to encroachments and the breach of restrictions arising out of reliefs. The case concerned complicated issues of contract law, particularly as such relates to the sale and purchase of land and the acquisition and extinction of rights overs land, and Jersey customary law in relation to the remedies available in such cases. The case also considered many other principles of Jersey customary law relating to immovable property, in particular in relation to boundaries, reliefs, and the doctrine of destination de père de famille.

Home Farm Development Limited-v-HJL Holdings Ltd and Lingard 7-Aug-2013 [2013]
Jeremy appeared for the respondents in an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Royal Court in circumstances in which, it was said, the respondents’ previous lawyer had acted beyond his instructions. The hearing involved consideration of the principles to be applied in applications for leave to appeal and the nature of an advocate’s instructions.

Flynn v. Reid [2012 (1) JLR 370]
Jeremy acted for the defendant in this important case which concerned the property rights of unmarried cohabitees. This was the first case in Jersey to consider the division and distribution of assets as between unmarried cohabitees following the breakdown of a long-term relationship. The case involved claims in contract, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment. The case remains a leading judgment in each of those fields and brought much needed clarity to the law of the Island in this area.

PERSONAL INJURY /TORT

Piazza-v-Larsen Ltd 20-Sep-2017 [2017]JRC153
The defendants in this action sought to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim for want of prosecution. Jeremy appeared for the plaintiffs at the hearing in which the Court considered the principles to be applied in such applications and refused to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that the defendants’ application was tactical in nature, that the plaintiffs had been attempting to settle the claim, in good faith, and in a proportionate manner, and that the balance of justice lay in allowing the plaintiffs’ to continue their claim.

Aukland v Minister for Health and Social Services and Cordova 31-Aug-2017 [2017]JRC136
Jeremy appeared for the defendants in this hearing before the Master which concerned the issue of exchange of expert medical evidence in respect of liability in actions for clinical negligence. The Court ruled that the usual order would be for simultaneous exchange of evidence in relation to liability, although noted that sequential exchange would be the usual course in relation to issues of quantum.

Ure-v-Minister for Economic Development 11-Dec-2015 [2015]JRC256
This case concerned a claim for damages arising out of an incident at Jersey Airport. Jeremy appeared for the defendant Minister at a hearing which considered the approach of the Jersey courts towards the exchange of expert reports on causation, quantum, condition and prognosis in respect of personal injury claims.

Morley-v-Reed 28-Jun-2012 [2012]JRC127A
This case, in which Jeremy acted for the defendant, concerned a claim for personal injuries arising out of a collision between a motorcycle and a car. The Royal Court restated the principles which applied to the law of negligence in this area and also examined in detail the principles of contributory negligence in Jersey.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Riba Consultaria Empresarial Ltda v Pinnacle Trustees Limited 12-Feb-2018

Jeremy was instructed to apply to the Royal Court for certain orders for the disclosure of documents and information held by an innocent corporate trustee in order to assist with the recovery of monies owed under a Brazilian judgment debt. The orders for disclosure were granted. Notably, the decision clarifies the test to be applied by the Royal Court when considering applications for Norwich Pharmacal type relief.

Pearce-v-Treasurer of the States 2-Jun-2016 [2016 (1) JLR 435]
The plaintiff sought to appeal a decision of the Assistant Judicial Greffier in respect of the taxation of a Bill of Costs presented by the Treasurer of the States as a consequence of the plaintiff’s failure in an action concerning the application of GST to rental payments owed to the Public. Jeremy was appointed to act as amicus curiae to assist the Court by presenting submissions on two issues raised in the case; (1) whether the public should be entitled to any form of profit by the application of a Factor B uplift to a claim for costs; and (2) whether the Greffier Substitute should on taxation take into account the question of proportionality of the costs claimed to the sum in dispute.

Hill-v-Meyer 11-Mar-2016 [2016]JRC060
Jeremy appeared for the plaintiff in relation to an application to amend its pleadings. The case involved a consideration of the nature of the assignment of debts to debt collection agencies and whether such assignments are validly executed and, if so, whether the provisions of the Code of 1771 prevented any reassignment of the debt. The plaintiff’s application to amend its pleadings was granted and the Court made observations of general importance to the debt collection agencies of the Island in relation to the proper assignment of debts.

Flynn v. Reid [2013 (2) JLR 280]
Jeremy acted for the respondent in this hearing before the Royal Court which considered whether the Court had jurisdiction to make a protective costs order and, if so, the circumstances in which such an order ought to be made. The Royal Court was satisfied that it did have such a jurisdiction and ordered that the costs of the appeal, of both parties, would be capped and met out of public funds.

Doorstop Ltd-v-Gillman and Lepervier 1-Nov-2012 [2012]JLR 226
This is the leading case in Jersey in relation to the manner in which the Court will approach the issue of the appropriate interest rate(s) to be applied in respect of claims before the Court, whether for debt or otherwise. Jeremy was appointed to act as amicus curiae to assist the Court with legal argument in respect of the issues raised. The case involved detailed consideration of the customary law of the Island and the development of the law in respect of the Court’s approach to interest rates. In particular the Court had to consider competing principles of customary law in relation to contractual interest and how these ought to be resolved by the Court.

Flynn v. Reid [2012 (2) JLR 226]
Jeremy acted for the respondent before the Court of Appeal in respect of an appeal against the decision of the Royal Court as to the award of costs between the parties following a trial. The case centred on what, if any, impact the fact that one or other of the parties was legally aided ought to have on the Court’s determination of costs. The matter was one of general public importance in which the Attorney General, the Law Society of Jersey and the Bâtonnier all intervened.

CRIMINAL

AG-v-Pereira 24-Nov-2016 [2016]JRC218
This case concerned allegations of sexual assault on a minor. Jeremy appeared for the defendant at trial, before a jury, and at sentencing before the Superior Number of the Royal Court. At sentencing, Jeremy successfully argued that the Royal Court should not have regard to opinions of English counsel, obtained by the prosecution, as to the appropriate sentence; sentencing being a matter for the Court alone.

AG-v-Bree and Binnie 8-Nov-2016 [2016]JRC203A
Jeremy appeared for the first defendant at trial before a jury and at sentencing before the Superior Number of the Royal Court. At sentencing, the Court was persuaded to impose a lower sentence than that moved for by the Crown and did not grant the Crown’s application for an order excluding the first defendant from licensed premises upon his release from custody.

AG-v-Norris and Norris 24-Aug-2015 [2015]JRC174
Jeremy acted for the second defendant in respect of the Crown’s application for confiscation of assets following conviction for a conspiracy to import cannabis resin into the Island. The case involved consideration of the underlying legislation and the appropriate manner in which ‘benefit’ should be calculated.

AG-v-Norris and Norris 11-Oct-2013 [2013]JRC198
Jeremy acted for the second defendant at sentencing before the Superior Number of the Royal Court after conviction for conspiracy to import nearly 250kg of cannabis resin into the Island. The Court was persuaded to depart from the Crown’s Conclusions and impose a significantly lower sentence than that moved for by the prosecution.

Back to top