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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 69 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Wells v Wells [2001] Family Law 656
2001
FD

Family
Where a party alleges that the other has made a nil contribution to the welfare of the family, the case must be advanced under s25(2)(g).
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)
1 Citers



 
 A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Payment of Legal Fees); FD 2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 605
 
C v C (Divorce: Stay of English Proceedings) [2001] 1 FLR 624
2001
FD
Johnson J
Family
The existence of a French ante-nuptial agreement was a significant factor in the staying of the English proceedings for divorce.
1 Citers


 
A-M v A-M (divorce: jurisdiction: validity of marriage) [2001] 2 FLR 6
2001


Family
The court marked the distinction between a non-existent marriage and a void one.
1 Citers


 
Cornick v Cornick (No 3) [2001] 2 FLR 1240
2001
FD
Charles J
Family
The court considered its powers when being asked to vary a lump sum provision at the same time as a variation of maintenance. Held: "section 31(7B) clearly introduces a wide discretionary power to be exercised by applying the words of the statute to make by way of supplemental provision (and thus to quantify and define) further lump sum orders, property adjustment orders and pension sharing orders if and when the court discharges or varies an order for periodical payments. Potentially this power could be exercised some considerable time after the original orders for financial provision, including a lump sum order and necessarily a periodical payments order, were made and the power means that an original lump sum order, or property adjustment order or pension sharing order although a once-and-for-all order cannot be regarded as the only order of that type that can ever be made if an order for periodical payments is also made and is continuing."
Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 31(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kimber v Kimber; FD 2001 - [2001] 1 FLR 38
 
Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Committal) [2001] 1 WLR 1253
2001


Family, Human Rights, Contempt of Court

1 Citers



 
 B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom; ECHR 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 261; 35974/97; [2001] ECHR 298; 36337/97; [2001] 2 FCR 221; (2002) 34 EHRR 19; [2001] Fam Law 506; 11 BHRC 667
 
N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company) [2001] 2 FLR 69
2001
FD
Coleridge J
Family
The nature of the family assets may be taken into account when considering how they are to be divided in ancillary relief proceedings on divorce, where these are businesses which will be crippled or lose much of their value, if disposed of prematurely in order to fund an equal division. Coleridge J said: "In the current climate now, where the court is engaged more in dividing up assets than in calculating a party’s reasonable needs, there would be logic in trying to calculate and include a figure for any asset which generates a secure income. At its most extreme that might include the valuation of a party’s earning capacity. However, in my judgment, the evaluation of such an ephemeral item would be pregnant with problems and lead to endless debate incapable of fair resolution. It would be even more problematic where there was ongoing provision for children."
and "Mr Raynor also urges me to take into account the huge increase in turnover of the X group since the separation. He says that the real increase in the value of X has only occurred since that date and so in relation to any share the wife notionally would have in that asset it should be discounted. He says from a half to a third to reflect the fact that she made no contribution to it after separation.
Again, I think there is intrinsically some merit in this argument in this particular case but it needs to be approached with very great caution. There is no doubt that a glance at the figures reveals a very significant increase in the turnover of the businesses from 1997-2001 and this reflects directly on the value of the companies. Indeed, in relation to Z as it has been pointed out, it was not even in existence at the time of the separation. There is indeed a four-fold increase in turnover overall since the date of the separation and that is attributable to more than just natural price inflation.
Mr Mostyn urges me to reject this argument completely because, as he rightly points out, traditionally these applications have always been approached on the basis of the values existing at the date when the hearing takes place.
I am quite sure that even now in most cases that is the correct date when valuation should be applied. But I think the court must have an eye to the valuation at the date of separation where there has been a very significant change accounted for by more than just inflation or deflation; natural inflationary pressures on particular assets, for instance, the value of a house moving up or down in the housing market.
In this case the increase in value is attributable to extra investment of time, effort and money by the husband since separation and I do take into account the exceptionally steep increase in the turnover figures since the date of the separation. However, having done so it must be put in the context of the wife's continuing contribution too which similarly did not cease at the date of separation. She too has continued to play the valuable part that she had done throughout the marriage, in looking after the home and the children.
Mr Mostyn asked the hypothetical question: what would the position be if the value had similarly declined significantly since the date of the separation? In my judgment that too, in an appropriate case, could be a factor to be taken into account, particularly perhaps where the decline was as a result of action or inaction by the paying party. But that is not the situation in this case and I am not making a statement of general application or anything of that kind."
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25
1 Citers


 
Practice Note: Declaratory proceedings: Medical and welfare decisions for adults who lack capacity [2001] 2 FLR 158
2001


Family

1 Citers



 
 Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers and others; QBD 8-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 16 January 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 32; [2001] Fam 430; [2001] 1 All ER 908

 
 In Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney); CA 9-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 25 January 2001; Times, 09 January 2001; [2000] Ch 343
 
H v H (A Child) (Occupation Order: Power of Arrest) Times, 10 January 2001
10 Jan 2001
CA

Family, Contempt of Court
The respondent was a minor who had been violent within the family. He had been ordered to leave the family home, and a power of arrest had been attached. He argued that this could not apply because he was a minor. The fact that he could not be imprisoned for contempt, did not reduce the court's clear powers under the Act to attach such a power. The power of arrest was not a convenient short route to imprisonment for contempt, since one purpose of the power was facilitate enforcement of the order and to protect other children in the home.
Family Law Act 1996 47(2) - Criminal Justice Act 1981 1(1)

 
Cuff v Quinn [2001] EWCA Civ 36
15 Jan 2001
CA
Thorpe, Laws, Penry-Davey LJJ
Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Elizabeth Adams v Julian James Lewis (Administrator of the Estate of Frank Adams dec) Unreported, 26 January 2001; (2001) WTLR 493
26 Jan 2001
ChD
John Behrens
Family, Wills and Probate
The widow's claim under the Act was contested by three daughters where the widow received a specific legacy and the will gave trustees a power to apply any part of the residue during the lifetime of the widow to provide and maintain a suitable residence. The court reduced the specific legacy and made an order transferring the matrimonial home to the widow absolutely, thereby awarding her approximately one half of the value of the estate. The marriage had been very long, and the assets held in the husband's name. Held: Whilst the amount the claimant would have received on a divorce was only one factor, it can be a most important one. Too great a concentration on deeds and resources blurs the distinction between sections 1(2)(a) and (b). Having noted that there were sufficient assets in the estate to have provided for both parties on a divorce and that on divorce the court would have been looking for a clean break and that the case did not involve inherited assets there was stated to be no apparent reason why the court should depart from an equal division of the assets. It was stated that whether the divorce court would have awarded the applicant the matrimonial home or whether it would have sought to achieve equal division by some different route would have depended upon the needs and wishes of the parties.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 1(2)(a) 1(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Uddin v Ahmed and others [2001] EWCA Civ 204; [2001] 3 FCR 300
31 Jan 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Buxton LJ
Family, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Isiko and Another Times, 20 February 2001
20 Feb 2001
CA

Immigration, Human Rights, Family
It was not an infringement of the human rights of a family to deport a husband who had no permission to reside in the UK, even though the deportee's wife had a child by an earlier relationship who could not be separated from her former husband. Difficult choices needed to be made between the need to protect family life and the need for society to have immigration control. If a fundamental right such as the right to family life was involved, the court should expect of decision makers that they took those duties seriously, but even so, should defer to the considered policies made by a democratically elected parliament.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
C v C (Custody: Affidavit) Times, 16 March 2001
16 Mar 2001
CA

Family, Litigation Practice
A firm of solicitors wishing to withdraw, swore an affidavit to support their application. The affidavit included evidence of misbehaviour by the client. In error the affidavit was later sent to the wife's solicitors, who sought its admission as example of the sort of behaviour about which she complained. It was admissible. In reality the calls did not seek legal advice and did not benefit from privilege. They were admissible.

 
Westbury v Sampson Gazette, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 407
23 Mar 2001
CA
Bodey J
Professional Negligence, Family
The claimant was advised to accept a consent order that his wife should pay him a capital sum in the divorce, but by instalments. The wife later successfully applied to have the sum reduced. He sought to claim against his former solicitors for not advising him of this risk. Held: The claim failed. At the time there was no reason to anticipate the later circumstances which led to the reduction, and the loss had not been caused by any failure of the defendants, since he would have faced the same risks whatever order had been made.
Bodey J considered the situations in which a court might re-open an order: "The reopening under section 31 of the overall quantum of lump sum orders by instalments, especially when made as part of a package intended to be final (and all the more so when ordered by consent following an agreement) should only be countenanced when the anticipated circumstances have changed very significantly, and/or for cogent reasons rendering it quite unjust or impracticable to hold the payer to the overall quantum of the order originally made.
This formulation gives a little more latitude as regards section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 than do the Barder conditions for the grant of leave to appeal out of time; but that must, I think, follow from the statutory requirements under section 31(7) that the court is to consider all the circumstances."
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 31(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor Gazette, 01 June 2001; Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 472; [2002] QB 13; [2001] 3 WLR 533; [2001] 2 FLR 1158; (2001) 59 BMLR 1; [2001] 2 FCR 153; [2001] HRLR 38; [2001] Fam Law 736
4 Apr 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson LJ, Latham LJ
Human Rights, Administrative, Family, Prisons
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the interference with the prisoner's rights was proportionate, a refusal to provide the additional facilities which would be necessary was not an infringement of article 12, and nor was the policy unlawful or irrational.
Lord Phillips MR said: "Penal sanctions are imposed, in part, to exact retribution for wrongdoing. If there were no system of penal sanctions, members of the public would be likely to take the law into their own hands. In my judgment it is legitimate to have regard to public perception when considering the characteristic of a penal system."
European Convention on Human Rights Art 12
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
MacDonnell v Stobo or MacDonnell [2001] ScotCS 105
4 May 2001
SCS
Lord Prosser
Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Maskell v Maskell [2001] EWCA Civ 858; [2003] 1 FLR 1138.
8 May 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Bell J
Family
Ancillary relief application
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ondapbergenova v Bramley-Fenton [2001] EWCA Civ 744
9 May 2001
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cowan v Cowan; CA 14-May-2001 - Times, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 679; (2001) 2 FLR 192; [2002] Fam 97
 
Harris v Harris; Harris v Attorney General Gazette, 19 July 2001; Times, 06 August 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 765; [2001] 2 FLR 895; [2002] Fam 253
21 May 2001
FD
Munby J
Contempt of Court, Family
The applicant had been committed for ten months for contempt, being in breach of family court injunctions. He applied to be released after two months on the basis that the unserved balance of the sentence be suspended. The court held that it had the power to do this, even in the absence of any direct authority. It should use its powers in such a way as to maximise compliance with court orders, and that could best be achieved in this way in this circumstance. It is important that the in a free society parents who feel aggrieved at their experiences of the family justice system should be able to express their views publicly about what they conceive to be failings on the part of individual judges or failings in the judicial system. "The freedom to publish things which judges might think should not be published is all the more important where the subject of what is being said is the judges themselves. Any judicial power to punish such publications requires the most cogent justification. Even more cogent must be the justification for giving the judges a power of prior restraint." and “a judge, although it may be that on occasions he can legitimately exercise the functions of an aedile, is no censor”.
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 52 rule 7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 V v V (Ancillary relief: Power to order child maintenance); FD 6-Jun-2001 - Times, 16 August 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 799
 
Tom Omoghegbe Ikimi v Teresa Omawumi Ikimi Times, 18 July 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 873; [2002] Fam 72
13 Jun 2001
CA

Family, Immigration
A petitioner could issue a petition for divorce on the basis of being habitually resident in the UK, even though she would also have habitual residence elsewhere. In this case she had been in England for 161 days out of the year in question. Nevertheless, ordinary residence meant habitual and normal residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes apart from temporary absences. That interpretation was appropriate to be applied to the terms 'ordinarily' and 'habitually' resident, and that meaning should be adopted consistently in the interpretation of family law statutes.
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maginn v Maginn [2001] NIFam 15
21 Jun 2001
FdNI
McLaughlin J
Northern Ireland, Family

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harris v Harris [2001] 1 FCR 68
1 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Pill LJ
Family
The first instance court had acceded to the husband's application for downward variation of the wife's periodical payments to £9,000 per annum and to the wife's application substituting a lump sum of £120,000 for the future periodical payments order. The argument now was whether the judge had sufficiently reduced the rate of periodical payments and primarily on the methodology of capitalisation. Held: The order was affirmed. Although he had not been furnished with the relevant Duxbury calculations the figure was almost exactly in line with what the Duxbury tables would have suggested. The judicial assessment is essentially speculative. The periodical payments would end with the first life. The husband now had a serious illness compelling his retirement. The wife's earning capacity was uncertain as was her relationship with her current partner.
Thorpe LJ said: "So the judicial conclusion will always be vulnerable. Either party may feel, with the advantage of hindsight, that the judge failed. The wife may feel that she has been under compensated when accident or illness befalls. The husband may resent the capital paid over when the former wife finds a new husband. These considerations are familiar to ancillary relief specialists, since they apply equally to the negotiation or determination of claims at the stage of the divorce. It follows, in my judgment, that the discretion exercised by the judge in this new jurisdiction must be very broad. Unless some clear error of approach or calculation has been demonstrated, I do not believe that this court should lightly interfere with the judge's figures." The court trod a broad path. (Pill LJ) "What the judge is endeavouring to do is to express as a capital sum what is a fair capital sum in the circumstances in substitution for the periodical payments which would otherwise have been appropriate."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Clibbery v Allan and Another; FD 2-Jul-2001 - Times, 02 July 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 819
 
Otobo v Otobo [2001] EWCA Civ 1143
5 Jul 2001
CA

Family
Application to vacate a fixture
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Khan v Khan [2001] EWCA Civ 1256
12 Jul 2001
CA
Rix L
Family
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Smith [2001] EWCA Civ 1319
17 Jul 2001
CA

Family
Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Chappell v Butterworth [2001] EWCA Civ 1320
17 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Bellinger v Bellinger Times, 15 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1140; [2002] 2 WLR 411; [2002] Fam 150
17 Jul 2001
CA
Butler-Sloss President, Thorpe LJ, Walker LJ
Family, Administrative
Despite gender re-assignment, a person born and registered a male, remained biologically a male, and so was not a woman for the purposes of the law of marriage. The birth registration in this case had been correct. The words 'male and female' in the section had not previously been interpreted. The Corbett criteria remained applicable. The ability to marry is a matter of status, and is not for the parties alone. If this law is to be changed it must be for parliament to do so. (Lord Thorpe dissenting)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11(c)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Otobo v Otobo [2001] EWCA Civ 1200
18 Jul 2001
CA

Family

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal; CA 19-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 19 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 989

 
 Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Regina (Q and Another) v Same; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1151; [2001] 2 FLR 1122; [2001] UKHRR 1035; [2001] 1 WLR 2002; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] Prison LR 297; [2001] Fam Law 803
 
Gandhi v Patel and others [2001] EWHC Ch 473; [2002] 1 FLR 603
31 Jul 2001
ChD
Park J
Family, Wills and Probate

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
MH, SB, MB v Local Authority (Supplemental Judgement) Times, 15 November 2001; FPC 178/00162/163 and FPC 96 OO/8899
3 Aug 2001
FD
Mr Justice Wall
Family, Children
The effect of section 12(5)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 was to continue the appointment of a child's guardian ad litem after the making of a supervision order until the order expired or the guardian's appointment was terminated by the court. His functions should be carefully defined to provide a specific and identified role and there should be no duplication or confusion between the role of the local authority and that of the guardian.
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 12(5)(b) - Children Act 1989

 
Sabahlar v Mehana and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1442
11 Sep 2001
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fitzsimons v Fitzsimons; CA 12-Sep-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1443
 
Al-Hasani v Shaban [2001] EWCA Civ 1445
27 Sep 2001
CA

Family
Ancillary relief
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (L and Others) v Manchester City Council, Regina (R and Another) v Same Times, 10 December 2001; [2002] Fam Law 13; [2001] EWHC 707 (Admin); [2002] 1 FLR 43; [2002] ACD 45; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 268
28 Sep 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Munby
Family, Children, Local Government, Human Rights, Local Government
The council had a policy under which the financial assistance it gave to short term foster carers who were relatives of the children involved was rather less than would be given to non-family carers. The policy was challenged as unreasonable. Held: The policy which imposed arbitrary financial limits was unreasonable, and would inevitably conflict with the duty to look to the child's welfare. The policy operated to discriminate against family members and therefore infringed their human rights under the convention
Children Act 1989 22(3)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
[ Bailii ]
 
Powell v Powell [2001] EWCA Civ 1495
3 Oct 2001
CA
Ward LJ
Family
Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v Williams [2001] EWCA Civ 1506
10 Oct 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family
Application for permission to appeal a stay of execution and permission to rely on further evidence - ancillary relief
[ Bailii ]
 
Bright v Bright [2001] EWCA Civ 1581
12 Oct 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 H-J v H-J; FD 17-Oct-2001 - [2002] 1 FLR 415
 
Bond v Leicester City Council Times, 23 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1544; [2002] 1 FCR 566; [2002] HLR 6
23 Oct 2001
CA
Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice David Steel
Children, Housing, Family
The applicant had been the victim of domestic violence. She applied to be rehoused, but the authority considered her to be intentionally homeless, since she could have applied to court for an injunction excluding the violent partner. Held: That approach was incorrect. Although remedies might be available, these could be uncertain, and difficult for some people to achieve, and particularly so where there were children, and the courts would otherwise encourage attempts by the parties to avoid bitterness so as to encourage contact. There is still no presumption that contact with a violent parent was wrong.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625
25 Oct 2001
CA
Hale LJ, David Steel J
Contempt of Court, Family
The father appealed against a finding that he was in contempt of court in having breached a non-molestation order.
[ Bailii ]
 
M v Islington [2001] EWHC Fam 2
26 Oct 2001
FD

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Aydin v Aydin [2001] EWCA Civ 1661
29 Oct 2001
CA

Family
Application for permission to appeal out of time - ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Egbaiyelo v Egbaiyelo [2001] EWCA Civ 1970
5 Nov 2001
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Harris v Harris Times, 19 November 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1645; [2002] Fam 253; [2002] 1 All ER 185; [2001] 3 FCR 640; [2002] Fam Law 93; [2002] 2 WLR 747; [2002] 1 FLR 248
8 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mantell
Contempt of Court, Family
On an application by a contemnor to be purged of his contempt, the judge could only answer 'Yes', 'No', or 'Not Yet.' It was not right to add further complexity to release the contemnor, but with some further part of his sentence suspended. The powers of the court in such applications need to be clear and simple.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sulaiman v Juffali [2002] Fam Law 97; [2002] 2 FCR 427; [2002] 1 FLR 479; [2001] EWHC 556 (Fam)
9 Nov 2001
FD
Munby J
Family
The parties were of Saudi Arabian nationality and domicile. Both were muslim. The court was asked to say where a decree of divorce by talaq in Saudi Arabia was recognised here. The wife had petitioned for divorce here. The husband denied that she had been resident so as to allow jurisdiction.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sulaiman v Juffali Times, 28 November 2001; [2002] 1 FLR 479; [2002] Fam Law 97; [2001] EWHC 556 (Fam); [2002] 2 FCR 427
9 Nov 2001
FD
Justice Munby
Family
A talaq pronounced in England as between parties who were Saudi nationals was not to be recognised in English law as a valid extra judicial overseas divorce, even though it otherwise complied with Sharia law. Section 44(1)(a) provides that no divorce obtained in any part of the British Islands is effective in any part of the United Kingdom unless granted by a court of civil jurisdiction. “Although historically this country is part of the Christian west, and although it has an established church which is Christian, I sit as a secular judge serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths in which all of us can now take pride, sworn to do justice ‘to all manner of people’. Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is no doubt something to be encouraged but it is not the business of government or of the secular courts. So the starting point of the law is an essentially agnostic view of religious beliefs and a tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity. A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state. It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. All are entitled to equal respect, whether in times of peace or, as at present, amidst the clash of arms.”
Family Law Act 1986 Part II 44(1)(a) 45(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
X v X (Y and Z intervening) [2002] 1 FLR 508; [2002] Fam Law 98; [2001] EWHC 11 (Fam)
9 Nov 2001
FD
Munby J
Family
The court considered an agreement under which the quid pro quo for the payment of a sum of money was a husband's agreement not to defend his wife's petition for divorce grounded on his behaviour (even though he believed that he had grounds for divorcing her for adultery) and his agreement also to give her a Jewish religious divorce – a Get. Held: Munby J said: "A number of the factors in play are simply unquantifiable on any objective basis. How is a secular judge to evaluate the combination of the get and a decree based on the husband's conduct rather than the wife's adultery for a family apparently exercised by the possible religious and social ramifications? How am I to put a price on the cost to the husband of a divorce obtained by his wife against him on the ground of his behaviour rather than a divorce obtained by him on the ground of her adultery? . . There are no means by which a secular judge, who may himself be an adherent of the same or a different faith or of no faith at all, can evaluate, let alone attribute some pecuniary value to, something as personal and of such religious significance as a get." The husband had fulfilled his side of the bargain and it would have been grotesquely unfair if the wife were able now to walk away with the two things she desired whilst wholly avoiding her obligations under the agreement.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sabahlar v Mehana and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1741
15 Nov 2001
CA

Family
Renewed application for leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Cordle v Cordle Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 04 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1441; [2001] EWCA Civ 1507; [2002] 1 FCR 97; [2002] 1FLR 207
15 Nov 2001
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President and Lord Justice Thorpe
Family, Civil Procedure Rules
The former practice in ancillary relief applications where a circuit judge hearing an appeal from a district judge could admit new evidence and hear the case de novo should not survive the new rules, and should cease. An appeal to the circuit judge is not a re-hearing but a review of the exercise of the district judge's exercise of a discretion. Appeals from a district judge could only be allowed for procedural irregularity, or a plainly wrong exercise of the judge's discretion. Fresh evidence should not be admitted unless there was a real need to do so on the application of the more liberal rules for the admission of fresh evidence recognised as necessary in Family proceedings.
Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Rules 52.11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor v Taylor [2001] EWCA Civ 1814
20 Nov 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family
Renewed application for permission to appeal by Ms T against an order requiring her to vacate the matrimonial home within a period of about 14 days and thereafter not to return during the pendency of the order. Held: Refused
[ Bailii ]
 
Anfield v Anfield [2001] EWCA Civ 1815
20 Nov 2001
CA

Family
Ancillary relief - refusal of second tier leave to appeal
Access to Justice Act 1999 855
[ Bailii ]
 
W v P [2001] EWCA Civ 1886
3 Dec 2001
CA
Thorpe, Laws LJJ
Family, Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Wakefield Council v A and D [2001] EWHC Fam 3
5 Dec 2001
FD

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Akintola v Akintola [2001] EWCA Civ 1989; [2002] 1 FLR 701; [2002] Fam Law 263; 2002] 1 FCR 453
12 Dec 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Morland J
Family, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Ranson v Ranson [2001] EWCA Civ 1929
13 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And Sir Martin Nourse
Family
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title difficulties, its value was reduced, and the order impossible to fulfil. Two distinguished land law experts disagreed as to the effect of the defect. The judge had eventually valued it on the capital value of the rental income. Held: The judge had been wrong to take the valuation to the point of capitalising the rental value. It should have been dealt with by way of periodical payments. A receiver had been properly appointed to handle the property.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
McKnight v Northern [2001] EWCA Civ 2028
17 Dec 2001
CA

Family, Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Kalyan v Kalyan [2001] EWCA Civ 2037
17 Dec 2001
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 M v M; FDNi 20-Dec-2001 - Unreported, 20 December 2001
 
Anya v Anya [2001] EWCA Civ 2012
20 Dec 2001
CA

Family
Appeal against grant of decree nisi of divorce.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.