Kaslefsky v Kaslefsky

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
37 cases
  • Wright v Wright
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 February 1960
    ...rightly, that there was no evidence of "express purpose" in this case. 28 Lord Justice Bucknill, in ( Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky 1951 Probate, page 38), referring to this passage, said: "That is a clear statement that brutality to the child would not amount to cruelty to the wife......
  • Gollins v Gollins
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 June 1963
    ...P. and Cairns, J.) made an extensive and valuable analysis of the authorities and held, chiefly on the authority ofKaslefsky v. Kaslefsky [1951] P 38 and Eastland v. Eastland [1954] P 403, that the facts proved did not amount to cruelty. Their decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (W......
  • Gollins v Gollins
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 October 1962
    ...(1956) Probate, 344, without recognising that the relevant test in that case was not a test of universal application. The case of Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1951) Probate, 38, was not apparently cited to them, and they omitted to consider, because they were never invited to consider, whether......
  • Windeatt v Windeatt (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 February 1962
    ...health. In saying that, I am I hope accurately paraphrasing what was said by Lord Justice Denning (as he then was) in the case of Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, 1951 Probate, 38, an authority to which reference is frequently made, and one which I think I may add my brother Danckwerts and I had oc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT