(Scotland) The valuation of the matrimonial home was to be taken as at the date of the couple’s separation. The House affirmed the decision of the Court of Session. Judges: Lord Keith of Kinkel Citations: Times 05-Aug-1993, 1993 SC (HL) 49,  UKHL 16,  EG 148 (CS), 1993 SLT 1348, 1993 SCLR 800 Links: … Continue reading Wallis v Wallis: HL 5 Aug 1993
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion. Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not obligatory, but following it would generally ensure that a patient’s rights were not infringed. It recognised … Continue reading Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested;: CA 16 Jul 2003
Acquisition of Habitual Residence Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day. Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member state such as the United States. The Regulation also deals with how child … Continue reading A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013
The effect of section 10(3)(b) of the 1985 Act was that the whole of the wife’s share of the increase in its value after the date of separation which passed to the husband as a result of the sheriff’s order had to be left out of account in the computation of the amount of the … Continue reading Wallis v Wallis: SCS 1992
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a vaginal birth was preferable and did not given advice … Continue reading Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: SC 11 Mar 2015
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2. Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted to a threat that D … Continue reading Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police: HL 30 Jul 2008
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if the suffering of psychiatric injury by the parent was a foreseeable result of making it and … Continue reading JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others: HL 21 Apr 2005
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious faiths. Held: A distinction was to be made between domestic cases involving actions within … Continue reading Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004
Each appellant complained of the disclosure by the respondent of very old and minor offences to potential employers, destroying prospects of finding work. Two statutory schemes were challenged, raising two separate questions, namely whether any interference with Article 8 ECHR is: (1) ‘in accordance with the law’ (‘the legality test’) and (2) ‘necessary in a … Continue reading Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI): SC 30 Jan 2019
The Court heard heard a preliminary proof restricted to the issue of the ‘the relevant date’ in the 1985 Act. Lord Doherty  ScotCS CSOH – 95 Bailii Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 10(3) 27(2) Scotland, Family Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534130
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own request refused but that of his family had … Continue reading Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004
Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital. Held: The 1973 Act gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007
No Presumption of House for both Parties When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be reluctant to allow repeated appeals … Continue reading Piglowska v Piglowski: HL 24 Jun 1999
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination. Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and women by treating women more favourably on the … Continue reading James v Eastleigh Borough Council: HL 14 Jun 1990
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
On an applicatin for ancillary relief on divorce, the sherriff thought that the spouses could share equally in the increase in the value of the matrimonial property after the date when they separated. That could not be done under the rules laid down . .
The parties had lived together, but remained unmaried. The relationship broke down and Ms Gow claimed under the 2006 Act. Mr Grant now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Mrs Gow’s application for an award of a capital sum was refused. There . .
‘ The appellant . . seeks a pensions sharing order under section 8(1)(baa) of the 1985 Act on her divorce from her husband (‘Mr McDonald’) on the basis that his pension forms part of the matrimonial property which is taken into account in fixing . .
(Extra Division, Inner House) W claimed for a pension sharing order under section 8(1)(baa) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. The Court was now asked: ‘what proportion of the value of her husband’s rights or interests in the British Coal Staff . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts