B-T v B-T (Divorce procedure)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1990 |
| Year | 1990 |
| Date | 1990 |
| Court | Family Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
19 cases
-
Gohil v Gohil
...the issue, complicated as it then was by different provisions applying to different levels of court, in B-T v B-T (Divorce: Procedure) [1990] 2 FLR 1. In the course of his judgment Ward J gives prominence to the long established alternative to appeal which is that, in the High Court at leas......
-
CS v ACS and Another
...J pointed out in Benson v Benson (Deceased) [1996] 1 FLR 692, at 606, Ward J (as he then was) had commented as long as 1989 in B-T v B-T (Divorce: Procedure) [1990] 2 FLR 1 that the various procedures were unsatisfactory and cumbersome, yet, as she dryly observed, 'the difficulties persis......
-
Harris v Manahan
...can an order like this be challenged? There seem to be four possibilities. I covered three of them in B-T v B-T (Divorce: Procedure) [1990] 2 FLR 1 and Thorpe J. suggested a fourth in Re C (Financial Provision: Leave to appeal) [1993] 2 FLR 341. Appeal: The Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977 pe......
-
Re K (A Child: Post Adoption Placement Breakdown)
...assisted the forensic process. Twenty years ago Ward J (as he then was) memorably made the point that 'judges are not forensic ferrets' ( B-T v B-T [1990] 2 FLR 1 at p.17). The pressure under which modern family judges are required to work is such that they simply do not have the time to be......
Request a trial to view additional results