White v White: CA 19 May 2003

The parties to the marriage owned a property which they had extended. The relationship deteriorated, and the mother sought an order under the 1996 Act. The mother left the home, and the father cared for the children. He sought orders under the 1989 Act for the transfer of the property. Those proceedings were made subject to the current proceedings.
Held: Sensible case management demands that competing applications be conjoined. The current order was wrong in principle. When the court looked at the intentions of the parties under a trust, it should look to the time before the trust, not from time to time later. The powers under each Act are not co-extensive. Unless for some special reason the application should be under both Acts and the exercise of the powers under each Act should be considered by the same court and at the same time.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Arden, Mr Justice Bodey
[2003] EWCA Civ 924
Bailii
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14, Children Act 1989 Sch1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPearce v Pearce CA 28-Jul-2003
The financial claims on divorce had been settled by a compromise recorded in a court order. The order included periodical payments to the former wife. After she suffered financial losses, she sought an increase, and the former husband sought an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.184446