Bull v Bull

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1965
Date1965
CourtProbate, Divorce and Admiralty Division

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Re Barrell Enterprises
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 July 1972
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Inglis v Inglis and Baxter
    • United Kingdom
    • Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
    • Invalid date
  • Kathleen Clarke (Petitioner) Raymond Clarke (Respondent) Pamela Clarke (Intervener) Albert Fellingham (Party cited)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 October 1967
    ...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)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 July 1968
    ...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
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1967 Preliminary Sections
    • 12 November 2022
    ...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
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1967 Preliminary Sections
    • 12 November 2022
    ...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
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1967 Cases reported in 1967
    • 12 November 2022
    ...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
    • United States
    • Sage American Politics Research No. 34-1, January 2006
    • 1 January 2006
    ...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......