Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Williams v Lindley (Formerly Williams) [2005] EWCA Civ 103

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : williams-v-lindley-formerly-williams-2005-ewca-civ-103
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 10, 2005, 11:19 AM
Article ID : 88459

(10 February 2005; Thorpe, Smith and Buxton LJJ; Court of Appeal) [2005] 2 FLR 710, [2005] The Times March 23

By a majority (Buxton LJ dissenting), the court allowed the appeal against refusal of an application for extension of time to set aside a consent order, on the basis that the refusal was unjust. When it was suggested that a supervening event justified the re-opening of a consent order, the judge ought to focus on the extent to which the assumptions underlying the order had been undermined, and not look ahead to what he considered would happen at the rehearing. In this case the wife's engagement within a month of the making of the consent order destroyed the foundation of the order, which had been the wife's urgent need to rehouse herself and the children.

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