The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the claims to be struck out. Held: The claim of harassment could not be struck out merely because … Continue reading Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Nov 2020
An English court should recognise a divorce decree granted in a foreign country where there was a real and substantial connection between the petitioner for the divorce and the country exercising the jurisdiction.Lord Wilberforce said: ‘In my opinion, it would be in accordance with the developments I have mentioned and with the trend of legislation … Continue reading Indyka v Indyka: HL 1969
In cases where putative father sought blood tests to establish that he was the father of a child, the unmarried mother could refuse to allow the test to take place. The clear effect of the wording of the sections together was clear and could not be overridden. It may be that the wording denies the … Continue reading In Re O; In Re J (Minors) (Blood Tests: Constraint): FD 10 Feb 2000
The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness of the marriage. The husband answered to say that she had declared that she would … Continue reading Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005
The husband was a serving soldier who had had various postings abroad. The wife returned home, where she discovered that she was pregnant. He followed her home, but she left him, and applied for maintenance. The justices found that she had deserted him, and that her behaviour was ‘gross and obvious misconduct’ and reduced her … Continue reading Robinson v Robinson (Practice Note): CA 2 Jan 1982
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H. Held: W’s appeal failed. ‘What the … Continue reading Owens v Owens: CA 24 Mar 2017
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
No presumption for Mother on Relocation The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence. Held: The move was a serious interference … Continue reading Payne v Payne; P v P: CA 13 Feb 2001
mak_ukECHR10 When RK, a nine year old girl was taken to hospital, with bruises, the paediatrician wrongly suspecting sexual abuse, took blood samples and intimate photographs in the absence of the parents and without their consent. Held: The doctor had acted in a way to infringe the child and the parent’s human rights in acting … Continue reading MAK and RK v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Mar 2010
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .
Lord Hodson said: ‘The interests of justice in the abstract are best served by the ascertainment of the truth and their must be few cases where the interests of children can be shown to be best served by the suppression of truth. Scientific evidence . .
Mother’s application for permission to appeal against order under the 1969 Act. . .
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
A paternity test was not to be ordered if it would be detrimental to the child’s interests. . .
The parties disputed an ancillary relief claim on their divorce. The husband had been suicidally depressed. The wife had committed adultery over a long time and also assisted her husband’s failed suicide. The husband now sought to rely upon her behaviour, saying it would be inequitable to ignore it. Held: The husband’s appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Kyte v Kyte: CA 22 Jul 1987
The judge had found that the threshold criteria in section 31 had been met, but the authority changed the care plan immediately before the final hearing. The guardian now appealed a final order, having proposed an interim order. Held: Once the care order had been made, the court had no continuing direct role. The order … Continue reading In Re J (Minors) (Care: Care Plan): FD 1994
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the advice infringed her rights as a parent, and … Continue reading Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security: HL 17 Oct 1985
The court described the 1969 and 1970 Acts as ‘a reforming statute designed to facilitate the granting of ancillary relief in cases where marriages have been dissolved . . We regard the provisions of sections 2,3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1970 as designed to accord to the courts the widest possible powers … Continue reading Wachtel v Wachtel: CA 8 Feb 1973
The judge was wrong to limit his ability to draw inferences from a putative father’s refusal to take a test to discover paternity. . .
An appointment under a trust created before 1970 but made after was deemed to have been before the change in age from 21 to 18. . .