Aidan Mauger (Respondent) v Pisamai Mauger (Appellant) (Jersey)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0009

Jurisdiction

Jersey

Parties

Appellant(s)

Pisamai Mauger

Respondent(s)

Aidan Mauger

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the appellant was not entitled to rest on the advances received from her late husband’s moveable estate while he was alive, to the extent that the advances exceeded the disposable one-third of his moveable estate?

Facts

The appellant is the widow of Ralph Cyril Mauger (“the deceased”). The respondent and one of his brothers (who is not a party to the appeal) are the deceased’s children by an earlier marriage. The deceased made a will leaving the entirety of his net moveable estate to the appellant. The deceased died on 26 July 2021. The respondent seeks the estate to be distributed according to the Jersey customary law doctrine of légitime. That doctrine, under the customary law of Jersey and a number of civil law systems, is a protection against disinheritance which limits a testator’s ability to dispose of moveable property in a will: the testator’s spouse has a claim to one-third of the net moveable estate; the testator’s descendants also have a claim to one-third of the net moveable estate between them. The testator retains full testamentary power to dispose of the remaining one-third (partie disponible). As a result, the respondent sought and was granted reduction of the deceased’s will ad legitimum modum so as to enable his legal entitlement to be met. It was suggested before the Royal Court that there is very little value in the deceased’s estate and it is not clear whether it is solvent. The respondent alleged that various lifetime (inter vivos) gifts were made to the appellant by the deceased which exceeded the disposable part of his moveable estate. The Royal Court decided that the appellant could retain any inter vivos gifts received from the deceased notwithstanding that they exceed the partie disponible, but that she would give up any claim to the estate of the deceased. The Court of Appeal disagreed with that conclusion, and considered that the appellant would be required to account for any inter vivos gifts in excess of the partie disponible. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

30 January 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top