Lavelle v Lavelle and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2004 |
| Date | 11 February 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Costs - order of judge - clear reasons for order should be given
When making an order for costs the judge should clearly state the reasons for the order made, particularly where the costs incurred were disproportionate to the amount in issue between the parties.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker) so held on February 11, 2004, dismissing (i) an appeal by Tracy Lavelle and other defendants against the declaration made by Judge Howarth, sitting as a Chancery Division judge in Manchester that the claimant, George Lavelle, owned Flat 6, Churchill Place, Monton, which he had purchased but which was registered in the name of his daughter Tracy, the presumption of advancement having been rebutted on the evidence, and (ii) the appeal against the costs order made.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that no note was kept of the judge's reasons for the costs order that he made. The costs were dealt with at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M v M
...that the property was held on trust for a spouse who owned and controlled the company (see [170], [181], [210], below); Lavelle v Lavelle[2004] 2 FCR 418 and Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] 3 FCR 210 (3) Relevant evidence subsequent to the transfer was admissible and the issue for the ......
-
Her Royal Highness Tessy Princess of Luxembourg, Princess of Nassau and Princess of Bourbon-Parma v His Royal Highness Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume Prince of Luxembourg, Prince of Nassau and Prince of Bourbon-Parma and another
...EWCA Civ 347, [2008] 1 WLR 2695, [2008] 2 FLR 589, [2008] 2 P&CR 14, [2008] 2 EGLR 70. Lavelle v Lavelle[2004] EWCA Civ 223, [2004] 2 FCR 418. Matthews v Matthews[2013] EWCA Civ 1874, [2014] 2 FLR Michael v Michael [1986] 2 FLR 389, CA. Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane[2006] UKHL 24, ......
-
Gabriele Volpi v Matteo Volpi
...has been rebutted, what the court looks for is the subjective intention of the putative donor: Lavelle v Lavelle [2004] EWCA Civ 223, [2004] 2 FCR 418 at [18]. The intention of the putative donor is highly relevant, and in most cases will be determinative: Meisels v Lichtman [2008] EWHC 6......
-
Crossley v Crossley
...1 All ER 373, [2000] 1 WLR 377, CA. Kyriakides v Pippas [2004] EWHC 646 (Ch), [2004] 2 FCR 434. Lavelle v Lavelle[2004] EWCA Civ 223, [2004] 2 FCR 418. Lloyds Bank plc v Rossett [1990] 1 All ER 1111, [1991] 1 AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, HL. Mortgage Corp Ltd v Shaire, Mortgage Corp Ltd v Lewi......
-
Section 199 of the Equality Act 2010: How Not to Abolish the Presumption of Advancement
...227,232,246.49 See, for example,Rod way vR[1990]HCA 19;(1990) 169 CLR515 at [4].50 [1983] 1 AC 553, 563.51 [2004] EWCACiv 223; [2004] 2 FCR 418at [19]:‘it is not satisfactory to applyr igidru les of lawtothe evidence that is admissible to rebut the presumption of advancement. Plainly, self-......