Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

Miller/McFarlane and MacLeod - The Duality of Law-making

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Title : Miller/McFarlane and MacLeod - The Duality of Law-making
Slug : miller-mcfarlane-and-macleod-the-duality-of-law-making
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Apr 30, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87139

Miles Geffin, Professional Support Lawyer, Mishcon de Reya

In MacLeod v MacLeod (Isle of Man) [2008] UKPC 64, [2009] 1 FLR 641, the Board of the Privy Council held that 'the difficult issue of the validity and effect of ante-nuptial agreements is more appropriate to legislative rather than judicial development'. The purpose of this article is to explore why the Law Lords were bound to exercise their judicial function to develop social policy in Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186 whilst, in MacLeod, bound to defer to Parliament on the validity on ante-nuptial agreements.

To read the rest of this article, see May [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

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