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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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