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

Peter G Harris - The Miller Paradoxes

Sep 29, 2018, 16:11 PM
Title : Peter G Harris - The Miller Paradoxes
Slug : peter-g-harris-the-miller-paradoxes
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Oct 6, 2008, 08:10 AM
Article ID : 84831

Peter G Harris, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, DSPSW, University of Oxford.

There is a pair of paradoxes at the heart of the House of Lords' judgments in the 'big money' divorce cases of White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186. The first paradox is that, while the judges recite the merits of legal certainty, namely in ensuring that like cases are treated alike and in promoting quick and inexpensive settlements, they go on to maintain a high degree of legal uncertainty. The second paradox is that by resisting the temptation to achieve greater certainty the judges arguably have better secured the courts against the unlike treatment of like cases and better promoted quick and inexpensive settlement than had they succumbed to that temptation.

For the full article, see November [2008] 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