Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Family - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Holmes v Holmes (1990) FLC 92-181
1990

Cohen J
Family, Commonwealth
(Australia) Cohen J considered the distribution of assets (in particular a lottery win) on divorce, saying: "Yet, ignoring any contribution to the price of the winning ticket, this part of the winnings was brought into the pool of family assets by the wife, and no contribution to it was made by the husband" Rather than regarding the win automatically as though there was no contribution by either party, concluded that a windfall must be looked at in all of the circumstances; in particular to have regard to the effort made by a party to achieve the windfall, as well as the timing of the windfall.
1 Citers


 
Windeler v Whitehall [1990] 2 FLR 505
1990

Millett J
Trusts, Family
The plaintiff and defendant lived together but were not married. The plaintiff spent some of a legacy she received on living expenses and supervised minor building works to the family home. She claimed an interest in it. Held. Millett J said: "If this were California, this would be a claim for palimony, but it is England and it is not. English law recognises neither the term nor the obligation to which it gives effect. In this country a husband has a legal obligation to support his wife even if they are living apart. A man has no legal obligation to support his mistress even if they are living together. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not claim to be supported by the Defendant but brings a claim to a proprietary interest in his business and his home." The works did not constitute a detriment on which she could rely: "Any wife or mistress would do the same. Only a lawyer versed in the authorities but lacking all sense of proportion would consider that such conduct gave her any kind of proprietary interest in the house."
1 Citers


 
Latter v Latter 1990 SLT 805
1990
SCS
Lord Marnoch
Scotland, Family
The court considered an application for financial provision on a divorce. Much of the family wealth was created within a farming company, but the shares in that company were either inherited by the husband or acquired before the marriage. Held: The definition of matrimonial property in the 1985 Act was capable on occasions such as this of producing very real injustice.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
1 Citers


 
Little v Little 1990 SLT 785
1990
IHCS
Lord Hope, Lord Dunpark
Scotland, Family
The court considered the risk in divorce ancillary relief proceedings that treating each step in the process as raising an issue of law and not of discretion would open up decisions by the court of first instance for reconsideration on appeal. The division of matrimonial property under the 1985 Act is essentially a matter of discretion, aimed at achieving a fair and practicable result in accordance with common sense. The directions in the 1985 Act were designed to reduce the scope of the court's discretion to the minimum that was consistent with enabling the court to deal with each case on its own facts.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
1 Citers


 
In Re J [1990] FCR 193
1990

Cazalet J
Family, Litigation Practice
An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. The standards set for experts in civil cases apply equally in family proceedings.
1 Citers


 
K v K (Ancillary Relief) [1990] 20 Fam Law 19
1990

Scott Baker J
Family
H drank excessively and was unemployed. In the divorce he made an application for ancillary relief against the offer from W to share the proceeds of sale of the house equally. Held: H was homeless and unemployed. His behaviour was such as should be taken into account, but his needs required provision of a sum which might enable him to get a home, and he was to receive more than 50% of the proceeds of sale.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)

 
E v E (Financial Provision) [1990] 20 Fam Law 297; [1990] 2 FLR 233
1990
FD
Ewbank J
Family, Costs
The parties had a long marriage. They had acquired or inherited substantial assets, some of which had been placed in trusts. W had left and had affairs. She sought ancillary relief. Held: The wife's behaviour was not to be considered as a separate factor under section 25, but was still part of the picture of her contribution to the marriage. The post-nuptial settlement should not be varied to an extent greater than was necessary, and the first consideration remained the welfare of the children. W had persisted in unrealistic valuations of properties, and H had at first failed to disclose assets held in Switzerland. Each had contributed to increased costs and the costs order should reflect this.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)

 
G v G (Ouster: Ex parte Application) [1990] Family Law 254
1990
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Butler-Sloss LJ
Family
An ex parte order was made requiring a wife to vacate the family home immediately and was served on her when she was bringing two of the children of the family home from school. Held: Lord Donaldson MR: there was no reason why the judge could not have made a non-molestation order in the widest terms which could have been served on the wife at the same time as the inter partes application for an ouster injunction. Butler-Sloss LJ did not consider that the affidavit evidence showed a situation sufficiently grave to come within "immediate danger of serious injury or irreparable damage".
1 Citers


 
Re Collins [1990] Fam 56; [1990] 2 All ER 47
1990


Wills and Probate, Family
It is doubtful whether a former spouse of the deceased who had remarried before applying to the court had any standing to make an application under the Act. A person born as a 'child of the deceased' loses his right to claim under the Act if he is adopted before making an application for provision.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

 
Evans v Evans (Practice Note) [1990] 1 WLR 575
1990
FD
Booth J
Family
The parties had assets worth about £350,000, most of which consisted of business assets which provided the family income and could not be sold. They ran up costs of £60,000 in contesting the application for ancillary relief. The court issued general guidelines to be followed by practitioners in the preparation of such cases which were designed to reduce costs, including "Solicitors and counsel should keep their clients informed of the costs at all stages of the proceedings and, where appropriate, should ensure that they understand the implications of the legal aid charge: the court will require an estimate of the approximate amount of the costs on each side before it can make a lump sum award."
1 Citers


 
Crittenden v Crittenden [1990] 2 FLR 361; Times, 12 April 1990
12 Apr 1990
CA

Family
The word 'property' in the section refers only to property in which one or other of the parties has a beneficial interest, and the words 'deal with' relate to acts of dealing, not a lack of dealing with.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(a)
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.