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
The Legal Rights and Wrongs of Puberty Blocking in England
Hannah Hirst, PhD student, University of Liverpool, School of Law and Social JusticeKeywords: Puberty blockers – children’s rights – access to health – UNCRC –...
Re M (Special Guardianship Order: Leave To Apply To Discharge) [2021] EWCA Civ 442
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Peter Jackson, Baker, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 26 March 2021)Public Law Children – Special guardianship – Leave to apply to discharge SGO – Refusal...
AB v CD & Ors [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam)
(Family Division, Lieven J, 26 March 2021)Medical treatment - Gender Dysphoria – Consent – Young person prescribed puberty blockers – Decision in Bell – Whether parents could...
Re H-N And Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), President, King, Holroyde LJJ, 30 March 2021)Private law children - Domestic Abuse – Fact finding – ApproachThe Court of Appeal provided guidance in four...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
View all articles
Authors

Moore v Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:16 PM
This claim was commenced by Roger against Stephen and the Company, seeking dissolution of the Partnership between Roger, Stephen and the Company, but that aspect of the claim has only a walk-on part (there is an underlying disagreement as to the nature of the partnership, which is said by Roger to have been a partnership at will but by Stephen to be a partnership until the death of either himself or of both Roger and Pamela) and I will deal with it at the end of this judgment. It is agreed that the Partnership should be dissolved; the principal dispute is the Part 20 Claim brought by Stephen against Roger in which Stephen claims an equity over the farming business, including the freehold land, operated by the Partnership.
Slug : moore-v-moore-2016-ewhc-2202-ch
Meta Title : Moore v Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 16, 2016, 03:57 AM
Article ID : 114561
(Chancery Division, Mr S Monty QC, 19 August 2016)

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch)
Case No: 3BS30094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
2 Redcliff Street
Bristol BSI 6GR

Date: 19 August 2016

Before :

MR S MONTY QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

ROGER MOORE (by his Litigation Friend, Pamela Moore)
Claimant/Part 20 Defendant

and

(1) STEPHEN MOORE
First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant
(2) TILL VALLEY CONTRACTING LIMITED
Second Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miss Caroline Shea QC and Miss Ciara Fairley (instructed by Michelmores LLP) for the Part 20 Claimant
Mr Nigel Thomas and Mr Paul Clarke (instructed by Thrings LLP) for the Part 20 Defendant

Hearing dates: 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 July 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Moore v Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch)

Judgment Approved
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Property
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from