Bull v Bull
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1965 |
| Date | 1965 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty 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
3 cases
-
Re Barrell Enterprises
... ... Haworth (1964) Probate, page 6 , is one which is not without its logical difficulties (see Bull v. Bull (1963) Probate 618 at pages 632-3) and one which in our view should not beextended to other fields ... 29 However ... ...
-
Kathleen Clarke (Petitioner) Raymond Clarke (Respondent) Pamela Clarke (Intervener) Albert Fellingham (Party cited)
...evidence altogether easy to appreciate; and for myself I rather share the difficulties to which the learned President gave expression in Bull v. Bull, (1965 3 Weekly Law Reports 1048), particularly in the passage in his judgment to which we were referred at pages 1059 and 1060. Having expr......
-
Greta Valerie Middleton (Petitioner) John Middleton (Respondent)
...on which the wife relies. 11 We have in the course of the argument been helpfully referred to the observations of the learned President in Bull v. Bull, (1965) 1 All England Law Reports, 1057. I do not refer to those observations in detail; it is sufficient to say that the learned Presiden......
4 books & journal articles
-
Preliminary Sections
...K.B. 549. 323 Bruce v. Presbytery of Deer [1867] L.R. 1 S.c. 96, 97, H L 205 Brydges v. Brydges & Wood [1909] p. 187. 46 Bull v. Bull [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1048. 177 Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd & anor (1958) 2 All E.R. 579. 60 C.O. Segun (01. Alokolaro with him;, for the 17th and 2......
-
Cases referred to in 1967
...K.B. 549. 323 Bruce v. Presbytery of Deer [1867] L.R. 1 S.c. 96, 97, H L 205 Brydges v. Brydges & Wood [1909] p. 187. 46 Bull v. Bull [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1048. 177 Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd & anor (1958) 2 All E.R. 579. 60 C.O. Segun (01. Alokolaro with him;, for the 17th and 2......
-
OBAYEMI V. OBAYEMI
...petitioner we do not consider that the appellant has any legal right to ask for it on appeal. Mr. Omotosho relying on Bull y. Bull [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1048 submitted there was sill a discretion in the court to allow this but that 35 case turned upon the failure of the wife to pray for the discr......
-
McCormack Versus Udall
...on the idea that legislators, or the “principals,”have certain expectations of party leaders, who serve as their “agents”(Jones, 1968, p. 618; Rohde & Shepsle, 1987; Sinclair, 1995). In perhaps themost explicit elucidation of this approach, Barbara Sinclair (1995) drawsfrom the observations......