Mubarak v Mubarik (No 2) (Order for production)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Family Division |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2171 (Fam) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Date | 2002 |
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
6 cases
-
W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV
...Lord Mance at para 24 (“the general safeguard of the right to apply to set aside which exists under CPR r 23.10”); Mubarak v Mubarak [2003] 2 FLR 553 [2002] EWHC 2171 (Fam) per Hughes J at 560A (power to adjourn) and CIMC Raffles Offshore (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Schahin Holding SA [2014] EWHC......
-
Deutsche Bank AG v (1) Sebastian Holdings Inc. (2) Alexander Vik (Defendant for costs purposes only/applicant)
...matter about which information is needed" in order to enforce the judgment or order, as set out in CPR 71. 20 In Mubarik v Mubarak [2002] EWHC 2171 (Fam), Hughes J, as he then was, stated that a predecessor to Part 71 did not "authorise a freestanding process of specific discovery". He stat......
-
Adare Finance Dac v Yellowstone Capital Management S.A.
...AG v Sebastian and Alexander Vick [2015] EWHC 2773. At paragraph 20, he summed up part of the judgment of Hughes J in Mubarak v Mubarak [2002] EWHC 2171, stating: “… a predecessor to Part 71 did not ‘authorise a freestanding process of specific discovery’. He [that is Hughes J] stated that ......
-
Marketmaker Technology (Beijing) v CMC Group Plc & Others
...gave to the new director. 58 Counsel for Mr. Taher, in his written submissions, invited me to consider the court's reasoning in Mubarak v Mubarak [2003] 2 FLR 553“that a director could not be taken to have had possession of company documents even if he had an enforceable right to them”. Thi......
Get Started for Free
