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

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 . .

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

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

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

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 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 . .

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 . .