Skip to content

swarb.co.uk

May the law be with you – lex vobiscum

  • Law
    • More Recent Cases
    • e-Legal Gathering
    • Case Layout
    • FAQ
    • Searching
    • Areas of Law
    • law index
    • Courts
    • Reports
    • Judges
    • Case Names
  • Privacy
    • GDPR – Overall
    • Anonymity Orders
    • GDPR – Request to be ‘Forgotten’
    • Privacy – Users
    • GDPR – Content
    • GDPR – Legitimate Interests
    • Lawfulness of processing
    • Purposes Limitation
    • Cookie Policy
    • GDPR -Accuracy
    • GDPR – Resources
    • California Consumer Privacy Act
  • About
    • What we do
    • Contact
    • Development
  • Advertising
    • Advertising
    • Donate
    • Statistics
  • Registration

Davila v Davila: ChD 18 Apr 2016

Laurence Rabinowitz QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
[2016] EWHC B14 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.565546

Posted on March 12, 2021March 12, 2021 by dlsPosted in Contract, Trusts

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Ferguson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 May 2014
Next Next post: Brasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4): ECJ 5 Mar 1996

Areas of Law:

  • Administrative (1,120)
  • Adoption (461)
  • Agency (620)
  • Agriculture (773)
  • Animals (305)
  • Arbitration (1,261)
  • Armed Forces (358)
  • Banking (1,416)
  • Benefits (3,520)
  • Capital Gains Tax (486)
  • Charity (383)
  • Child Support (309)
  • Children (5,385)
  • Civil Procedure Rules (320)
  • Commercial (1,417)
  • Commonwealth (3,082)
  • Company (3,023)
  • Constitutional (947)
  • Construction (1,172)
  • Consumer (739)
  • Contempt of Court (852)
  • Contract (6,114)
  • Coroners (421)
  • Corporation Tax (680)
  • Costs (3,551)
  • Crime (8,398)
  • Criminal Evidence (633)
  • Criminal Practice (3,315)
  • Criminal Sentencing (2,886)
  • Customs and Excise (1,686)
  • Damages (2,486)
  • Defamation (1,543)
  • Development (1)
  • Discrimination (2,628)
  • Ecclesiastical (307)
  • Education (1,063)
  • Elections (224)
  • Employment (12,724)
  • Environment (820)
  • Equity (961)
  • Estoppel (334)
  • European (12,960)
  • Evidence (517)
  • Extradition (1,589)
  • Family (2,883)
  • Financial Services (1,014)
  • Health (1,519)
  • Health and Safety (459)
  • Health Professions (1,928)
  • Housing (1,999)
  • Human Rights (19,661)
  • Immigration (56,354)
  • Income Tax (3,224)
  • Information (15,624)
  • Inheritance Tax (178)
  • Insolvency (3,044)
  • Insurance (1,249)
  • Intellectual Property (13,534)
  • International (956)
  • Ireland (18)
  • Judicial Review (584)
  • Jurisdiction (1,046)
  • Jury (1,775)
  • Land (5,294)
  • Landlord and Tenant (15,657)
  • Legal Aid (391)
  • Legal Professions (1,957)
  • Licensing (594)
  • Limitation (1,064)
  • Litigation Practice (7,051)
  • Local Government (1,629)
  • Magistrates (758)
  • Media (1,140)
  • Natural Justice (322)
  • Negligence (1,336)
  • News (49)
  • Northern Ireland (1,755)
  • Nuisance (460)
  • Personal Injury (2,905)
  • Planning (3,239)
  • Police (1,549)
  • Prisons (1,248)
  • Professional Negligence (1,619)
  • Rating (670)
  • Registered Land (822)
  • Road Traffic (1,211)
  • Scotland (16,745)
  • Stamp Duty (187)
  • Taxes – Other (2,256)
  • Taxes Management (1,381)
  • Torts – Other (2,759)
  • Transport (2,049)
  • Trusts (1,473)
  • Undue Influence (152)
  • Utilities (477)
  • VAT (5,534)
  • Vicarious Liability (248)
  • Wales (16)
  • Wills and Probate (1,781)

Recent Posts

  • Arbrath v North Eastern Railway Co: 1886
  • Elsee v Smith: 1822
  • Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co: CA 1989
  • Cotton v James: 30 Jun 1830
  • In Re Mohamed Arif (an infant): 1968
  • Regina v Berriman: 1854
  • Re Jolley: CA 1964
  • Levey v Henderson-Kenton (Holdings): 1974
  • Maxwell v Murphy: 1957
  • Ibralebbe v The Queen: PC 1964
  • In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995
  • Regina v Brackenbury: 1893
  • UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson: SCS 1990
  • Heslop v Metcalfe: 1837
  • Evans v Eradicure: 1972
  • Regina v Morrison: CACD 20 May 2003
  • Flureau v Thornhill: 1746
  • Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council: QBD 1964
  • Central Electricity Generating Board v Clwyd County Council: 1976
  • In re Ronald A Prior and Co (Solicitors): 1996
  • Regina v Gorman: 1993
  • Regina v Ingle: CACD 1974
  • Regina v Hyam: HL 1974
  • Vaughan v Weighpack Ltd: NIRC 1974
  • Regina v Jockey Club ex parte R A M Racecourses Ltd: 1993
  • Hicks v Faulkner: 1878
  • Rogers v Whiteley: HL 1892
  • Heslop v Burns: CA 1974
  • Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton: HL 1982
  • Chamberlain v Boodle and King: 1982
  • Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd: 1994
  • Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte Porter: 1992
  • Ransom v Higgs: 1973
  • Hydro Agri (UK) Ltd v The Owners of the ship “Sava Star”: AdCt 12 Apr 1995
  • Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC v NRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd: ComC 1 Aug 1995
  • Gooday v Gooday: CA 1968
  • Marubeni Corporation v Sea Containers Ltd: ComC 17 May 1995
  • City Leisure (Holdings) Ltd v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster: ComC 6 Apr 1995
  • OK Petroleum AB v Vitol Energy SA: ComC 5 May 1995
  • European Consulting Unternehemensberatung Aktiengesellschaft v Refco Overseas Ltd: ComC 12 Apr 1995
  • In re Nichols, deceased: CA 2 Jan 1975
  • Gurney v Gurney: 15 Mar 1855
  • The Ot Sonja: CA 1993
  • Lang v Webb: 1912
  • Regina v Henry: 1968
  • Re Christchurch Inclosure Act: 1888
  • Chief Constable of Northumbria v Brown: 1986
  • Segal: 1993
  • Northamptonshire County Council v S: 1993
  • Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership: CA 1987

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk

IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. We do not provide advice. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Only full case reports are accepted in court.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Colinear by Automattic.