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

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