The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held. Held: The shares were to be assessed as at the time of the sale, not the time … Continue reading Oxley v Hiscock: CA 6 May 2004
The applicant sought that the decrees nisi and absolute of divorce issued by the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam in favour of the respondent husband be refused recognition in England and Wales. Held: The application was granted: ‘the husband and his solicitor engaged in sharp practice in obtaining the divorce in Malaysia. A … Continue reading Liaw v Lee (Recognition of Divorce): FD 3 Jun 2015
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name of the first defendant, the second … Continue reading Yaxley v Gotts and Another: CA 24 Jun 1999
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
The claimant said that a scheme drawn by the defendant for compensating British civilians interned by the Japanese during the second world war was indirectly discriminatory on racial grounds by requiring a national origin link with the UK. She had . .
(Grand Chamber) When considering the appropriateness of a deportation order to a country with which the deporting country had a memorandum of understanding that the destination country would not torture the deportee, a court must look beyond the . .
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
References: [2003] EWHC 259 (QB), Gazette 01-May-2003, [2003] 1 FLR 1091 Links: Bailii Coram: The President An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration. Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents had been … Continue reading AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A, A, YA and, ZA (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B: QBD 26 Feb 2003
References: (1843) 3 Hare 100, [1843] EngR 917, (1843) 67 ER 313 Links: Commonlii Coram: Sir James Wigram VC The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying … Continue reading Henderson v Henderson; 20 Jul 1843
