Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL PROVISION: Lake v Lake (2006) The Times August 16

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ; 20 July 2006) [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)
Slug : lake-v-lake-2006-the-times-august-16
Meta Title : FINANCIAL PROVISION: Lake v Lake (2006) The Times August 16
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 20, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89125

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ; 20 July 2006) [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)

The judge had to take a balanced and fair decision as to which of the parties should have the benefit of a joint tenancy following the dissolution of the marriage, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including conduct of the parties. If the absence of express reference in Sch 7, para 5 of the Family Law Act 1996, dealing with transfer of tenancies on divorce, to s 33(6)(d) of the Family Law Act 1996 dealing with occupation orders, were to be construed as placing a fundamental limitation on the court's discretion to consider conduct, all sorts of practical difficulties would arise.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from