“Byron James, barrister, 14 Grays Inn Square considers the questions arising in relation to transactions set aside by s.37 MCA 1973 orders.”
Family Law Week, 9th May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“A multi millionaire entrepreneur who gave his ex-wife £10.4 million in their
divorce settlement has defeated an attempt by her at the High Court to get a
bigger slice of his fortune.”
Daily Telegraph, 8th May 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 382
“The Pensions Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a scheme member to set aside a compromise agreement where successful determination of the complaint would adversely affect the rights of the parent company in circumstances where it was a necessary party to any claim to set aside the agreement but was not subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A nationwide search has been launched for four missing children after a high court judge said that they had been abducted by their mother.”
The Guardian, 16th October 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers those judgments of the last few months which are of most importance in the area of private law children proceedings.”
Family Law Week, 5th September 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“The home secretary is under fire for failing to comply with a high court order to bring an asylum seeker who is in hiding in Azerbaijan back to Britain.”
The Guardian, 30th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“; (Case C-213/10); [2012] WLR (D) 123
“Where a liquidator assigned a claim to have a transaction set aside derived from the national law applicable to the insolvency proceedings, the claim subsequently made by the assignee against a third party to have the transaction set aside came within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p1) and was no longer covered by the exception in article 2(b) for insolvency proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has ruled that domestic courts may refuse to recognise a judgment of another Convention country on the basis that it failed to respect the fair trial principles in Article 6.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Hackney London Borough Council v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8; [2011] WLR (D) 7
“Where a court had made an order for possession against a tenant in his absence, on an application to set aside that order under CPR r 3.1 the court should take all the circumstances into account under r 3.9, where the tenant could show for the purposes of r 39.3(5) that he had acted promptly when he found out about the possession order, had a good reason for not attending the trial and had a reasonable prospect of success on the application, giving precedence to the requirements of r 39.3(5).”
WLR Daily, 21st January 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A party who had been named in arbitration proceedings could simply ignore the arbitration proceedings if he considered that he had not entered into the agreement and come to court to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; but if he had taken part in the proceedings disputing the jurisdiction of the court or the tribunal’s exercise of their asserted substantive jurisdiction, his right was limited to challenging the award under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Noble v Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 224; [2010] WLR (D) 73
“Where fresh evidence was adduced in the Court of Appeal tending to show that the judge at first instance had been deliberately misled the court would only allow the appeal and order a retrial where the fraud was either admitted or the evidence of it was incontrovertible. In any other case, the issue of fraud had to be determined before the judgment of the court below could be set aside.”
WLR Daily, 11th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Pitt and another v Holt and another [2010] WLR (D) 2
“A receiver appointed under the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Court of Protection was entitled to rely on the principle that, where a trustee exercised a discretion pursuant to the terms of the trust and the effect of the exercise was different from that intended, the court would set aside his action if it was clear that he would not have acted as he had, had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which he ought not to have taken into account (‘the Hastings-Bass principle’).”
WLR daily, 19th January 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, applications for the setting aside of orders made without notice were governed by rule 23.10, and determined by the court exercising the discretion given by that rule in accordance with the overriding objective to do justice.”
The Times, 4th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal
“A charge on a property which was not in itself a reviewable disposition was not to be set aside as a result of setting aside the transfer of a property by a husband to defeat his wife’s rights, which was a reviewable disposition.”
The Times, 16th January 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Ansari v Ansari (Bank of Scotland plc intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 1456; [2008] WLR (D) 413
“Where a disposition of property made with the intention of reducing financial relief had been followed by further transactions made for valuable consideration and in good faith, the discretion conferred by s 37(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 would not be used to set aside, as a consequence of setting aside the original reviewable disposition under the Act, a charge, not in itself a reviewable disposition which had been granted by the purchaser on the security of the property.”
WLR Daily, 5th January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Prejudiced party can make claim
Chancery Division
“Where the court had set aside an irregularly made order, but on grounds other than that the order had been irregularly obtained, it was open to a party prejudiced by the making of the order to claim, at a later stage, that the order had been irregularly obtained.”
The Times, 23rd August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024