Hitchcock v W. B. and F. E. B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Divisional Court |
| Year | 1952 |
| Date | 1952 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
31 cases
-
Re D (an Infant)
...same footing as a legal parent for the purpose of deciding whether his consent is being unreasonably withhold; that is, the principle of Hitchcock's case applies, and the test is whether his attitude, as a father, in refusing consent, is unreasonable", and the learned Judge referred to a pa......
- Practice Direction (Adjournment from Chancery Master to Judge)
-
Re W (an Infant)
...3 All E.R. 1008, C.A. C. (L.) (An Infant), In re [1965] 2 Q.B. 449; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 1041; [1964] 3 All E.R. 483, C.A. Hitchcock v. W. B. and F. E. B. [1952] 2 Q.B. 561; [1952] 2 All E.R. 119, D.C. K. (An Infant), In re [1953] 1 Q.B. 117; [1952] 2 All E.R. 877, C.A. L. (An Infant), In re, Th......
-
Re B. (A Minor) (Adoption by Parent)
...consent unreasonably and the adoption order would be revoked (post, pp. 138G, 140D, H, 141D-E,143H-144A, 145F-146A). Hitchcock v. W. B. and F. E. B. [1952] 2 Q.B. 561, D.C. applied. Per curiam. (1) The irregularity of the representative of the guardian ad litem retiring with the justices wa......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Family Law
...but that these were not proved in the present case. As to s 4(4)(c) the trial judge held, citing Hitchcock v WB and FEB and others[1952] 2 QB 561, that it could not be said that E was refusing his consent in the present case “whimsically or arbitrarily or not in good faith”. The judge also ......
