Mills v Mills

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1940
Year1940
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
15 cases
  • L v L
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 23 October 1961
    ...the monthly payments as income subject to tax. 6 The order made by the learned Registrar was in the form approved in this court in Mills v. Mills (1940 Probate Division, page 124) - a form which, we were informed, has been repeatedly followed in a number of cases during the years that have ......
  • Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 8 November 1996
    ...3 SLR (R) 491; [1994] 1 SLR 22 (folld) Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth [1989] 1 SLR (R) 244; [1989] SLR 342 (folld) Mills v Mills [1940] P 124; [1940] 2 All ER 254 (folld) Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William [1995] 1 SLR (R) 819; [1995] 2 SLR 231 (refd) Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431......
  • Minton v Minton
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 23 November 1978
    ...point on the cases derives no support from what the judges in fact said as to the extent of their jurisdiction. For instance, in Mills v. Mills [1940] P. 124 (a decision of the Court of Appeal which established the practice of the court in making consent orders), Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R. sa......
  • Dipper v Dipper
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 March 1980
    ...of the statutes since 1958 with the attainment of that objective which in certain cases is obviously desirable. 54Lord Greene, M. R., in Mills v. Mills solved the problem under the old law by inventing what used to be called the " Mills v. Mills order". I need not go into any details of tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Statute-barred cohabitant claimants in Barbados
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 2-1, June 1992
    • 1 June 1992
    ...application. The Master of the Rolls offered this explanation for his decision in Mills v. Mills: 7 3 Scott v. Scott [1921] P. 107. 74 [1940] P. 124. 75 [1940] P. 124 at 130. 76 [1942] P. 101. "It must not be thought that I was assuming any more than the bald circumstances which I stated, n......

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