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

Secrets and lies: no deceit down under for paternity fraud [2008] CFLQ 81

Sep 29, 2018, 17:50 PM
Slug : secrets-and-lies-no-deceit-down-under-for-paternity-fraud-2008-cflq-81
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 16, 2011, 04:51 AM
Article ID : 95683

Novel legal actions seeking damages in deceit for paternity fraud are appearing around the world. Until recently, the only reported decision in England and Wales was P v B (Paternity: Damages for Deceit), in which Stanley Burnton J decided as a preliminary point of jurisdiction that such an action was possible. Australia's High Court has now decided its first such case (Magill v Magill). While all of their Honours held that the tort was not made out on the facts of the particular case, they also addressed at length the general question of the applicability of deceit to paternity lies within marriage. A variety of reasons were adopted, with the majority holding that there was no cause of action in deceit in these circumstances. Shortly after that decision, the English High Court handed down judgment in A v B (Damages: Paternity), in which the trial judge followed P v B in preference to Magill v Magill and made an award of damages. This note explores the reasoning of the High Court of Australia and considers its relevance in the context of England and Wales.

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