Egerton v Egerton: 1949

The court considered its power to vary a post-nuptial settlement. Barnard J said: ‘No one could quarrel with this statement as a guiding principle, but at the same time I think it would be wrong to interpret it as meaning that it is a principle which must be applied in every case, regardless of its facts. That would, in my opinion, be placing fetters on the discretion of the court which the legislature never intended.’
Barnard J
[1949] 1 All ER 670
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
CitedSmith v Smith CA 1970
The husband had deserted the wife and gone abroad to work; the sole asset was the matrimonial home which was in joint names, and which constituted a post-nuptial settlement. The wife applied for variation of the settlement, whereby, on obtaining the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.652167