Click the case name for better results:

University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 9 Dec 2004

The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive covenants remained in effect. The University sought their discharge. Held: The Borough had owned the dominant and … Continue reading University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 9 Dec 2004

Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority: CA 1977

The appellant said that his human rights were infringed when, as a moslem, he was refsued time off from his work as a primary school teacher to attend prayers at the mosque on Fridays. He had subsequentlly been re-instated part-time, but complained that this affected his pension rights. Held: Lord Denning MR said that whilst … Continue reading Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority: CA 1977

Regina v Inner London Education Authority, Ex parte Ali: 1990

The broad duty imposed on a local education authority by section 8 ‘to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools . . for providing primary education’ is a ‘target duty’. Judges: Woolf LJ Citations: [1990] 2 Admin LR 822 Statutes: Education Act 1944 8 Cited by: Cited – Regina v London … Continue reading Regina v Inner London Education Authority, Ex parte Ali: 1990

Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (ex parte Kujtim): CA 31 Mar 1999

A person had been assessed by the local authority under section 47 as being a person in urgent need of care and attention which was not otherwise available to him, so that he satisfied the criteria laid down in section 21(1)(a). He claimed that, following that assessment, the local authority had to meet these needs … Continue reading Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (ex parte Kujtim): CA 31 Mar 1999

Regina v Essex County Council ex parte Bullimore: CA 26 Mar 1997

Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Peter Gibson, Phillips LJJ Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 1359 Statutes: Education Act 1944 55(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Education Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141755

Regina v Essex County Council, Ex Parte C: CA 9 Dec 1993

Free transport to a school of the parents’ choice is not a Local Authority obligation. Citations: Ind Summary 20-Dec-1993, Times 09-Dec-1993 Statutes: Education Act 1944 76 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Education Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86642

Phillips v Brown: QBD 20 Jun 1980

DONALDSON LJ: Mr. Phillips appeals by case stated against his conviction and a fine of andpound;5 imposed by Mr Loy, the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrates, in September 1978 for failure to comply with a School Attendance Order. It is not the conviction or the fine which irks Mr. Phillips. His irritation, and perhaps even anger, is … Continue reading Phillips v Brown: QBD 20 Jun 1980

Regina v Devon County Council, ex parte George: HL 1989

A child lived 2.8 miles from school. The journey was rural and unlit. Whe he was 8, the education authority withdrew free transport saying it was practicable for a parent to walk with him. Held: The decision whether to offer support was that of the local Authority exercising its administrative discretion in the circumstancs of … Continue reading Regina v Devon County Council, ex parte George: HL 1989

Spiers v Warrington Corporation: 1954

Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘The headmistress did not suspend this child at all. She was always perfectly willing to take her in; all that she wanted was that she should be properly dressed. Suspending is refusing to admit to the school; in this case the headmistress was perfectly willing to admit the girl but was … Continue reading Spiers v Warrington Corporation: 1954

Isle of Wight Council v Platt: SC 6 Apr 2017

Regular school attendance is following the rules The respondent had taken his child out of school during term time to go on holiday. The child otherwise had an excellent attendance record. The Council having failed on appeal to the Administrative Court, it appealed saying that the word ‘regularly’ did not refer only to the the … Continue reading Isle of Wight Council v Platt: SC 6 Apr 2017

Hoskins v Hoskins: 1706

The rule against double portions applied so that a larger gift by will would be totally adeemed by a later and smaller inter vivos gift. Citations: (1706) Pr Ch 263 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Pym v Lockyer 1840 It can be sufficient for a gift to be adeemed as a portion … Continue reading Hoskins v Hoskins: 1706

Earl of Durham v Wharton: HL 1836

WL, brother of JL, gave property to JL charged with a legacy of pounds 5,000 to JL’s daughter, Susan, then unmarried. JL by his will later gave her pounds 10,000 on trust for life with remainder to her children and provided that the pounds 10,000 was to be additional to the gift to Susan (the … Continue reading Earl of Durham v Wharton: HL 1836

Watson and Watson: 1864

A gift in a will is not to be adeemed by small lifetime gifts – they are not generally ‘portions’ of the inheritance. A gift may be a portion where it is from parent to child: ‘The rule applies not only to parent and child . .’ Citations: (1864) 33 Beav 574 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Watson and Watson: 1864

Shudal v Jekyll: 1742

Whether ademption takes place is settled by identifying the testator’s intention. Despite the need to rely upon documents, oral evidence has been ‘constantly admitted in all these cases’. Citations: (1742) 2 Atk 516 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald … Continue reading Shudal v Jekyll: 1742

Re Kershaw’s Trusts: 1868

In the particular circumstances a provision made for the benefit of the husband was for the benefit of the wife. Judges: Sir Richard Malins V-C Citations: (1868) LR 6 Eg 322 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and … Continue reading Re Kershaw’s Trusts: 1868

Chapman v Salt: 1709

A gift in a will to a married woman was adeemed by a later gift by the testatrix of a note for the same sum to her husband. It had been objected that the note was to one and the legacy to another but evidence was received that the note was intended to satisfy the … Continue reading Chapman v Salt: 1709

Kirk v Eddowes: 1844

The court discussed cases of ademption in a context where the two gifts were by instruments, to the effect that: ‘… The law raises a presumption that the second instrument was an ademption of the gift by the instrument of earlier date …’ Though care has to be taken not to offend the parole evidence … Continue reading Kirk v Eddowes: 1844

McLure v Evans: 1861

The court must look to the testator’s intentions to decide whether there has been an ademption of a gift. Citations: (1861) 30 LJNS Ch 295, (1861) 29 Beav 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others ChD … Continue reading McLure v Evans: 1861

Ex Parte Pye: 1811

A person acting in loco parentis is ‘in the situation of the person described as the lawful father of the child’ Judges: Lord Eldon Citations: (1811) 18 Ves p 154 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others … Continue reading Ex Parte Pye: 1811

Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others: CA 13 Jul 2005

The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for inducing a breach of contract against the sixth defendant. It said that an intention to disturb a contract could be inferred. Held: A mere recklessness as to whether contractual rights were disturbed was insufficient to found the tort of interference with contractual relations. Judges: Sedley LJ, Arden … Continue reading Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others: CA 13 Jul 2005

In re D (J): ChD 1982

The patient, a widow had five children. After she became a mental inpatient the court was asked to draft a statutory will. Held: The court emphasised the need to provide full details of the estate assets and family background. An order that a will should not be executed pending an appeal was wrong in principle. … Continue reading In re D (J): ChD 1982

Ponnusamy and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: QBD 30 Mar 2015

Application made by the defendant Secretary of State to strike out the Particulars of Claim (POC) and enter judgment for the Defendant pursuant to CPR 3(4) because they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. The claim was that: ‘ that the interests of the Indian (mainly Tamil speaking) population of Malaysia were ignored … Continue reading Ponnusamy and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: QBD 30 Mar 2015

Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey: CA 29 Jul 2004

The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had not been in prison. Held: The statutory scheme replaced an ex gratia scheme, and there … Continue reading Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey: CA 29 Jul 2004

Ravenscroft v Jones: 1863

A father by his will bequeathed andpound;700 to his then unmarried daughter. Later two inter vivos gifts were made; one, of andpound; 100, was plainly not a portion. The other, of andpound;400, was not given to the daughter but to her husband. The testator said to the husband that he hoped the gift would do … Continue reading Ravenscroft v Jones: 1863

Montefiore v Guedalla: 1859

Referring to the doctrine of ademption: (Turner LJ) ‘… the court will not impute to a parent the intention twice to discharge the same obligation of providing for his child – a rule founded, as it seems to me, on very sufficient reasons; for there can be no doubt that, in the absence of it, … Continue reading Montefiore v Guedalla: 1859

Pritchard v Briggs: CA 1980

A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported compliance with the right of pre-emption. A year later the plaintiff purported … Continue reading Pritchard v Briggs: CA 1980

Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006

The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006

RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008

The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was cancelled when he lost his home. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The disabilty premium, as part of … Continue reading RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008

In Re Pollock: CA 7 Mar 1885

There exists a special consideration sufficient to deny a gift in a will the character of ‘pure bounty’ is where the gift by will has a particular purpose identified in the will itself. The language may show that the gift is intended to meet a particular moral obligation. In such circumstances an arlier gift may … Continue reading In Re Pollock: CA 7 Mar 1885

In re George’s Will Trusts: ChD 1949

If the basic ingredients of a portion are present, then the question of whether or not a gift by will is in fact a portion depends to a large extent upon the donor’s intentions. The testator, by his inter vivos gift of a portion, ‘as it were anticipat[ed] his demise and [ put the devisee] … Continue reading In re George’s Will Trusts: ChD 1949

Office of Fair Trading (OFT) v Abbey National Plc and Others: SC 25 Nov 2009

The banks appealed against a ruling that the OFT could investigate the fairness or otherwise of their systems for charging bank customers for non-agreed items as excessive relative to the services supplied. The banks said that regulation 6(2) could be used neither by the OFT, nor by individual consumers to object to their charges. Held: … Continue reading Office of Fair Trading (OFT) v Abbey National Plc and Others: SC 25 Nov 2009

Pym v Lockyer: 1840

It can be sufficient for a gift to be adeemed as a portion where the donor is a parent: ‘in the case of a parent, a legacy to a child is presumed to be intended to be a portion . .’ The court queried the likelihood of an intention in a grandfather . .

Re Ware: 1926

No presumption as to any double portion arose in the case of dispositions made in favour of a child by a mother unless she had placed herself in loco parentis to them. In this case there was no evidence of such. . .

In Re Shields: 1912

Warrington J said: ‘By ademption is meant 1 think in this context a transaction to which the donee as well as the donor is a party.’ Since the testator’s intention had not been communicated to the legatee in his lifetime there was no ademption. . .

Rosewell v Bennet: 1744

Where the rule against double portions is held to apply, the effect of the later gift inter vivos, does not cause a revocation of the will, but rather brings about a position in which, to the extent of that later gift, there has been an acceleration . .

Cooper v MacDonald: 1873

A testator by will gave a share in his residuary estate to his then unmarred daughter and later, under a marriage settlement to which he was party, gave two gifts, namely andpound;1,000 to the prospective husband for his own use and benefit and . .

Re C (A Patient): ChD 1991

It may be likely that more than one kind of provision may be described as what the donor of the power of attorney ‘might be expected to provide’. ‘I observe that the statute, recognising the difficulty of arriving at any certainty in these matters, . .

In re R (Enduring Powers of Attorney): ChD 1990

The claimant had worked for the deceased for many years. The deceased gave her nephew an enduring power of attorney which was in due course registered. The nephew dismissed the claimant. The claimant said he had worked for many years at a very low . .

Re Ashton: ChD 1897

Stirling J said: ‘Prima facie the duty of making a provision for a child falls on the father, but may fall on or be assumed by some other person. I do not say that in no case and under no circumstances can the duty fall on or be assumed by the . .

Pankhurst v Howell: 1870

If both a gift by will to a donee and a later gift inter vivos by the testator to the same donee are a ‘pure bounty’, then the latter gift will not be taken to be a substitute, wholly or in part, for the former and the donee will be able to take . .

In re Vaux: CA 1939

The term ‘portion’ has a ‘qualitative significance’ as well as purely quantitative significance. As to the doctrine of ademption: (Sir Wilfrid Greene MR) ‘The rule against double portions rests upon two hypotheses; first of all, that under the will . .

In re Furness: 1901

A legacy may be adeemed as a portion ‘when a parent by will gives a legacy to a child . .’ It is not enough to deny ademption to show only that the limitations of the portion under the will are different from those in the later inter vivos gift. . .

In Re Eardley: 1920

The court considered whether a gift might adeem a gift in a will by ‘by a father or a person in loco parentis’ but ‘the matter must be regarded from a wider point of view’. The rule against double portions is, in effect, no more than one way of . .

Lowther v Bentinck: 1874

An exercise can be recognised as being for the benefit of a woman when an advance is made to set up her husband in business. . .

Lord Chichester v Coventry: HL 1867

Though the doctrines of ademption and of satisfaction of gifts are related, it is more difficult to establish satisfaction. Slight differences between the two gifts might be overlooked, but where there is real difference between the two gifts by way . .