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: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Hammond v Mitchell; 1992 - [1992] 2 All ER 109; [1991] 1 WLR 1127
 
Vicary v Vicary [1992] 2 FLR 271
1992


Family

1 Citers


 
Pidduck v Molloy [1992] 2 FLR 202 CA; Times, 09 March 1992
1992
CA

Family
The Act did not allow for a non-molestation order to be made once an unmarried couple had ceased to cohabit.
Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976
1 Citers



 
 Callaghan v Hanson-Fox (Andrew); 1992 - [1992] Fam 1; [1991] 2 FLR 519

 
 Primavera v Primavera; CA 1992 - (1992) 1 FLR 16
 
Wallis v Wallis 1992 SC 455
1992
SCS

Scotland, Family
The effect of section 10(3)(b) of the 1985 Act was that the whole of the wife's share of the increase in its value after the date of separation which passed to the husband as a result of the sheriff's order had to be left out of account in the computation of the amount of the matrimonial property that determined how much of it was to be paid by him to the wife.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
1 Citers


 
Amey v Amey [1992] 2 FLR 89
1992
FD
Scott Baker J
Family
H and W ran a public house held in H's name. W left for another man. A clean break settlement was agreed under which H was to pay W £120,000 in full and final settlement of all her claims and a draft note of order was to be placed before the court for the necessary order to be made. Before that happened W died. H sought rescission of the agreement and repayment. Held: Scott Baker J said: "Matrimonial law has moved on somewhat since Smallman was decided. There is no longer a requirement to obtain the court's approval. What the parties intended to do, in the present case, was to obtain the imprimatur of the court on a clean break agreement, so as to avoid the possibility of return at some later date, such as happened in, for example, Edgar v. Edgar (1981) FLR 19. It cannot therefore be said that the agreement is not effective because it was not considered by the court. Mr Coleridge for the husband accepts this. He also concedes that there is an agreement. His case is that it was vitiated by a change in a fundamental assumption underlying it. His argument is based on the observations of Lord Brandon in Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20. " The agreement however "stands or falls at law". The real issue was whether the agreement could be set aside by reason of mutual mistake or frustration and concluded that the wife's death soon after the agreement was not an event which entitled the court to intervene. The agreement stood and was enforced.
1 Citers


 
Wells v Wells [1992] 2 FLR 66
1992
CA
Brandon LJ
Family
The husband had transferred his interest in the former matrimonial home to the wife who had custody of the two children of the family. She remarried six months later. The husband sought to have the order set aside. Held: Brandon LJ said: "In my judgment, the order made by the judge, assuming it to have been appropriate at the time it was made, is no longer so. The only justification I can see for depriving the husband of all his interest in the only capital asset of the spouses was the necessity of providing the roof over the head of the wife and children in the foreseeable future. But for the pressing necessity, I think it is clear that the judge would not have made an order as hard on the husband as she felt obliged to make. Once that necessity had been removed, it seems to me the matter must be reconsidered and an order less hard on the husband made."
1 Citers


 
Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244
1992

Waite J
Family, Litigation Practice
The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife's flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now "fill a crate", as the judge was told. Held. Waite J summarised the legal background and procedures for discovery in the Family Division, referring to the Rules of the Supreme Court which governed civil proceedings in the High Court. He stated that they differ a little from that in other Divisions, in that the principal applicable rules were the 1977 Rules and that it had become standard practice to proceed to discovery by means of questionnaires. These partook of the character both of the request of discovery and of an interrogatory. In appropriate circumstances the court was exercising an inquisitorial jurisdiction: "underlying the whole basis of the exercise of the Court's discretion under the amended section 25 of the 1973 Act is the duty of both sides to provide the court with information about all the circumstances of the case, including amongst other things, the particular matters specified in section 25."
The first issue was: "what must the husband now disclose of the box file copies and the Wallace Court copies?" and the Judge held that the husband must disclose all of the documents in both categories.
Waite J held: "There is another important feature in the context of discovery which it is relevant to mention as applying in family cases. The jurisdiction is a paternal one, and, where financial proceedings are involved, the court is exercising not merely a paternal but also, in appropriate circumstances, an inquisitorial jurisdiction. Underlying the whole basis of the exercise of the court's discretion under the amended s. 25 of the 1973 Act is the duty of both sides to provide the court with information about all the circumstances of the case, including, among other things, the particular matters specified in s. 25. That was very clearly stated by the House of Lords in Livsey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424 . . (see the speech of Lord Brandon at p. 436)."
Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977 77(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Burnett v George [1992] 1 FLR 525 CA
1992


Family

1 Citers


 
Jessop v Jessop [1992] 1 FLR 591
2 Jan 1992
CA
Nourse LJ, McCowan LJ, Sir John Megaw
Family, Wills and Probate
The court considered the provision to be made under the 1975 Act for a surviving spouse: "In his argument in this court Mr. Vane relied strongly on s 3(2) and referred us to a recent case in this court, Moody v. Stevenson, a decision of Mustill LJ and Waite J which appears to give great prominence to the requirements of s 3(2) in a case of this kind. On the other side, Mr. Harrap referred us to a further passage in the judgment of Oliver LJ in Re Besterman deceased at p 469, which suggests that no greater prominence is required to be given to that consideration than to any of the others to which the court must have regard. It seems that Re Besterman deceased was not referred to in Moody v. Stevenson. In my view it is unnecessary for us to enter upon any possible conflict between those two decisions and I do not propose to do so."
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 3(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Cornwall County Council Ex Parte Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Guardians Ad Litem Gazette, 29 January 1992
29 Jan 1992
FD

Family, Local Government
A Social Services director exceeded his authority in issuing a generalised cash limit to guardian ad litem's legal costs in children cases.


 
 Mir v Mir; FD 29-Jan-1992 - Gazette, 29 January 1992

 
 Springette v Defoe; CA 1-Mar-1992 - [1992] 2 FLR 388
 
Wagstaff v Wagstaff Gazette, 29 April 1992; [1992] 1 FLR 333
29 Apr 1992
CA

Family
Personal injuries damages which were received 5 years after a couple's separation were nevertheless matrimonial assets.

 
Merritt v Merritt Gazette, 29 April 1992
29 Apr 1992
FD

Family
The introduction of fresh evidence to overturn a financial provision order should be allowed only in a rare case.

 
Family Division - President's Direction Gazette, 15 July 1992
15 Jul 1992
FD

Litigation Practice, Family
Directions on choice of High or County Court for various Family proceedings.

 
Open Door And Dublin Well Woman v Ireland (1992) 15 EHRR 244; [1992] ECHR 68; 14234/88; 14235/88
29 Oct 1992
ECHR
Mr R. Ryssdal, President
Human Rights, Family
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (Art. 8); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

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