Click the case name for better results:

In Re W v G (Paternity); In Re A (A Minor): CA 18 May 1994

The judge was wrong to limit his ability to draw inferences from a putative father’s refusal to take a test to discover paternity. Citations: Times 18-May-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 463 Statutes: Family Law Reform Act 1969 23(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones FD … Continue reading In Re W v G (Paternity); In Re A (A Minor): CA 18 May 1994

In re P (A Child): CA 16 Apr 2008

Mother’s application for permission to appeal against order under the 1969 Act. Judges: Rix, Wilson LJJ Citations: [2008] EWCA Civ 499 Links: Bailii Statutes: Family Law Reform Act 1969 20 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278240

Indyka v Indyka: HL 1969

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

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security: HL 17 Oct 1985

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

Robinson v Robinson (Practice Note): CA 2 Jan 1982

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

S v S; in re S (An Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court) v S; W v Official Solicitor (Acting as Guardian ad Litem for a Male Infant Named PHW): HL 1970

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 . .

Acts

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

MAK and RK v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Mar 2010

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

McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income. Held: The distinction between capital and income awards is no longer conclusive, having arisen in part from historical … Continue reading McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Nov 2020

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

In Re O; In Re J (Minors) (Blood Tests: Constraint): FD 10 Feb 2000

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

Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

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

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

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

Payne v Payne; P v P: CA 13 Feb 2001

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