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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Smith v McInerney [1994] 2 FLR 1077
1994
FD
Thorpe J
Family
H had entered into a separation agreement with his wife, but now sought a lump sum and property adjustment order when his circumstances changed as a result of being made redundant. Held: Thorpe J cited Edgar v Edgar and Camm v Camm and said: "As a matter of general policy I think it is very important that what the parties themselves agree at the time of separation should be upheld by the courts unless there are overwhelmingly strong considerations for interference."
1 Citers


 
London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) [1994] 2 FLR 569; [1994] 1 WLR 1317
1994

Wilson J
Family, Costs
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel "punished" by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will only impinge ultimately on the welfare of the child or the children concerned.
Wilson J said: "Where the debate surrounds the future of a child, the proceedings are partly inquisitorial and the aspiration is that in their outcome the child is the winner and indeed the only winner. The court does not wish the spectre of an order for costs to discourage those with a proper interest in the welfare of the child from participating in the debate. Nor does it wish to reduce the chance of their co-operation around the future life of the child by casting one as the successful party entitled to his costs and another as the unsuccessful party obliged to pay them. The proposition applies in its fullest form to proceedings between parents and other relations; but it also applies to proceedings to which a local authority are a party. Thus, even when a local authority's application for a care order is dismissed, it is unusual to order them to pay the costs of the other parties."
1 Citers


 
Cornick v Cornick (No 1) [1994] 2 FLR 530
1994
FD
Hale J
Family

1 Citers


 
Welsh v Welsh 1994 SLT 828
1994


Family

1 Citers


 
Loudon v Loudon 1994 SLT 351
1994
SCS
Lord Milligan
Family
Lord Milligan said: "I have considered carefully counsel's submission on the question of the appropriate allocation of the matrimonial property. I am left in no doubt whatsoever that this should be an allocation in which, in the whole circumstances, the pursuer receives more than 50 per cent of the matrimonial property. I accept the submissions by counsel for the pursuer in preference to those of counsel for the defender on this matter. I find that on the question of economic disadvantage the pursuer is left economically disadvantaged to a material extent. It is said by counsel for the defender that any economic disadvantage which the pursuer may have is balanced by the advantage she has in having been married to so successful a businessman. I do not accept counsel's approach on this matter. As already mentioned, it is clear that the defender was a successful businessman throughout the parties married life together. While he was carving out a successful career, and indeed supporting the pursuer and their daughter well, the pursuer was looking after the house and their daughter over and above the parties' respective care of each other. The pursuer worked before the marriage but did not do so during the marriage. That she did not do so was not, I accept, due to any absolute insistence on the part of the defender that she should not work, but I interpret the evidence as indicating that he was content for her not to work. The defender is now well launched on a business career where he can command a high salary, currently apparently some 58,000 after tax per annum. The pursuer, on the other hand, requires to retrain in order to get back, as she put it, on the employment ladder. This she requires to do at the age of 45 years, which may well be problematical, at least so far as ending up with a well paid job is concerned. The difference between her earning potential now and what she would probably have been earning but for her marriage to the defender cannot be calculated with any accuracy but I think it reasonable to conclude that the pursuer has suffered a material economic disadvantage in this connection."
1 Citers


 
P v P (Financial Provision: Non-disclosure) [1994] 1 FCR 293
1994

Thorpe J
Family, Costs
The applicant wife had been shown to have been guilty of considerable misconduct of the financial case. It was submitted that, as a result of that misconduct, the court should reduce the wife's award on the application of the Section 25(2)(g) criterion. Held: The appropriate penalty was in costs, not in a reduction in the assets awarded. Thorpe J said: "There was no principle that serious non-disclosure would always be penalised in costs."
The wife was shown under cross examination to have made a serious under-disclosure in her ancillary relief application. H argued that this should be reflected in the award to be made to her. Held: Thogh not invariably so, the consequences should be in an appropriate order for costs: "It seems to me that in that case such price as is to be paid by the dishonest litigant is a price in costs, not in reduction of the appropriate share of the available assets. The suggestion contained in the last sentence of Lincoln J's judgment that maxims of equity should be applied to deny or reduce relief I cannot follow. It seems to me that the court has a duty to discharge a statutory function on the application of statutory criteria, and maxims of equity have nothing to do with it."
Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 25(2)(g)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
H v H (Financial Provision: Conduct) [1994] 2 FLR 801; [1994] 2 FCR 1031
1994


Family

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)
1 Citers


 
Official Solicitor v News Group Newspapers [1994] 2 FLR 174
1994
FD
Connell J
Media, Family, Contempt of Court
There had been a conviction of a nurse for multiple murders. The defendant was approached by a third party and published evidence taken from children's proceedings. Held: The defendant was guilty of contempt.
1 Citers


 
R v R (Divorce: Stay Of Proceedings) [1994] 2 FLR 1036
1994
FD
Ewbank J
Family
The wife had filed a petition for divorce on 22 April 1993 but did not reveal and serve it until after the husband had filed a petition in Sweden on 9 June 1993. She now sought an order staying the proceedings in Sweden. Held: The stay was refused.
Ewbank J stated: "I have to say that a divorce petition does not stand in the same position as a writ in a civil action; a divorce petition is dealing with the status of parties and is subject to the rules set out in the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977; it ought not to state that a marriage has broken down irretrievably if that is not the instructions of the client; and it ought to be served as soon as practicable after filing. It is not appropriate in the Family Division for petitions to be filed and held in secret and not served until it suits the petitioner."
1 Citers


 
E v E (Non-Molestation Order) Times, 03 January 1994
3 Jan 1994
CA
Balcombe LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
Family
H had been found to have twice attempted to rape W. She applied for ouster and non-molestation orders. She appealed against an order which allowed him to continue to live in the matrimonial home, but with a non-molestation provision excluding him from her bedroom and supported by a power of arrest. She had told the judge 'I do not necessarily want him to go. I want my safety and peace.' Held: After such a finding, an ouster order would be the normal consequence, but the judge retained a discretion to make his own judgment on the evidence. The order actually made was, in the light of W's statement, within those open to him under that discretion. An ouster may not be necessary unless W says that it is required, even in otherwise clear circumstances.

 
Pounds v Pounds Times, 17 March 1994; Independent, 03 March 1994; [1994] EWCA Civ 10; [1994] 1 WLR 1535; [1994] 2 FCR 1055; [1994] 1 FLR 775
24 Feb 1994
CA
Neill LJ, Hoffmann LJ, Waite LJ
Litigation Practice, Family
Consent orders giving effect to financial settlements are to be drafted & dated with care. The one in this case mistakenly pre-dated the decree nisi. It was amended under the slip rule.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pike v Pike Times, 04 March 1994
4 Mar 1994
CA

Family
A Decree Nisi granted in a nullity petition does not prevent an application for an ouster order for violence within the family based upon the fact that the parties had been married.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 16 - Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 1

 
Keegan v Ireland 16969/90; [1994] ECHR 18; [1994] 3 FCR 165; 1994) 18 EHRR 342; [1994] ECHR 18
26 May 1994
ECHR

Human Rights, Family
The mother and father were not married, and their relationship broke up before the birth of the child, and the father was excluded from seeing the baby after the first time in hospital. He sought guardianship, and objected to his exclusion from involvement in the decision that the child should be adopted. Held: Family ties come into existence where there is a relationship netween a man and a woman which is stable and where they have children even though they are not married.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Brooks v Brooks Independent, 27 May 1994; Times, 27 May 1994
27 May 1994
CA

Family
A single member pension fund scheme was a post nuptial settlement within the Act, and was variable by the court on a divorce. No third party would be affected.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(c)
1 Citers


 
Widow's Benefit - Talaq R(G) 1/94 Gazette, 15 June 1994
15 Jun 1994
SSAT

Benefits, Family
A Talaq pronounced in the UK on a first marriage didn't make a second marriage monogamous.

 
T v T (Interception of Documents) Ind Summary, 15 August 1994; Times, 05 August 1994; [1994] 2 FLR 1083
5 Aug 1994
FD
Wilson J
Family
W feared that the H would seek to understate the true extent of his resources to the court and so she engaged in a number of activities, including opening and taking letters addressed to him and breaking into his office, with the intention of gathering documentation to enable her to ascertain H's true financial position. She had disclosed some but not all of the copies she retained. Held: The fact was to be taken account of in costs order but not to be relied upon as behaviour affecting her entitlements. The wife was wrong to open her Husband's post looking for evidence in ancillary proceedings, but can copy documents. The wife correctly anticipated H's failure to disclose his true financial position, and it was "reasonable" to take such photocopies as she could obtain without the use of force and to scour the dustbin. But it was "unacceptable" and "reprehensible" to use force, interception of mail and retention of original documents. Even so, he declined to regard that behaviour as relevant to the amount of the award although it would be relevant to costs.
Wilson J said: "The first question, which is not straightforward, is to what extent the wife's activities in relation to documents were reprehensible. The fact is that the husband had not made a full and frank presentation to the court of his financial resources and that a few of the documents taken by the wife (like the diaries, scrutinised by her and then called for) have enabled this to be made clear. The wife anticipated and I find that she reasonably anticipated at the outset of the litigation that the husband would seek to reduce the level of her reward by understating his resources in breach of his duty to the court. On balance, I consider that in those circumstances it was reasonable for the wife to take photocopies of such of the husband's documents as she could locate without the use of force and, for that matter, to scour the dustbins. But the wife went far beyond that. She (a) used force to obtain documents; (b) intercepted the husband's mail; and (c) kept original documents."
Wilson J continued to ask: "whether the reprehensible activities of the wife in relation to documents amount to relevant 'conduct' or to a relevant 'circumstance' within the subsection. I appreciate that it has been held that a spouse's behaviour in the ancillary litigation, specifically a dishonest failure to make full disclosure, amounts to such conduct a dishonest disclosure will more appropriately be reflected in the inference that the resources are larger than have been disclosed (in which case it will fall within s. 25(2)(a)) and/or in the order for costs; indeed that is how I intend to approach the husband's disclosure in this case. I am also firmly of the view that the wife's activity in relation to documents should not be brought into my reckoning of the substantive award, whether as conduct or a circumstance, but should prima facie have some relevance in respect of costs. The extent of their relevance will depend on the potency of other factors. Although the wife's activities may not have caused significant increase in the costs, the court's discretion is wife enough to permit their inclusion in its survey of the litigation."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Masefield v Alexander (Formerly Masefield) Ind Summary, 22 August 1994; Times, 19 August 1994
22 Aug 1994
CA

Family
The Court may vary and extent the time for the payment of a lump sum where the payer was not at fault. The time for payment was not part of the substance of the order.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 31

 
Hewitson v Hewitson Gazette, 09 November 1994; Independent, 07 October 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 472
7 Oct 1994
CA

Family
Cohabitation after a foreign clean break provisions does not allow a renewed application. The order of the foreign court was to be respected despite the attempted reconciliation.
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984

 
Lawlor v Lawlor Times, 20 October 1994
20 Oct 1994
CA

Family
A wife was entitled to defend a divorce as of right. She was allowed an extension of time to file her reply.

 
Lawlor v Lawlor Ind Summary, 31 October 1994
31 Oct 1994
CA

Family
Refusal of leave to file defence to petition out of time by few days was a denial of Justice.

 
Re C (Expert Evidence: Disclosure: Practice) [1994] EWHC Fam 4; [1995] 2 FCR 97; [1995] 1 FLR 204; (1995) 159 LG Rev 849; [1995] Fam Law 176
21 Nov 1994
FD
Cazalet J
Litigation Practice, Family

[ Bailii ]
 
P v P (Periodical Payments Appeals) Times, 19 December 1994
19 Dec 1994
FD

Family
Appeals against Magistrates court orders are to distinguish procedures carefully.

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