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

Peter G Harris - The Miller Paradoxes

Sep 29, 2018, 16:11 PM
Slug : peter-g-harris-the-miller-paradoxes
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : 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