Re B.'s Settlement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1940 |
| Year | 1940 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
20 cases
-
Re J (A Child) (Custody rights; Jurisdiction)
...This is so even in a case where a friendly foreign state has made orders about the child's future. This was explained by Morton J in Re B's Settlement, B v B [1940] Ch 54, 63-64: "I desire to say quite plainly that in my view this Court is bound in every case, without exception, to treat th......
-
Re J (A Child) (Return to Foreign Jurisdiction: Convention Rights)
...the appeal would be allowed. Decision of Court of Appeal [2004] 2 FCR 337 reversed. Cases referred to in opinionsB’s settlement, Re [1940] Ch 54. E (child abduction: non-convention country), Re[1999] 3 FCR 497, sub nom Osman v Elasha [2000] Fam 62, [2000] 2 WLR 1036, [1999] 2 FLR 642, CA. F......
-
In the matter of E
...This principle had an even earlier providence in cases involving previous custody orders made by a foreign court in Re B’s Settlement (1940) CH. 54 where the court was dealing with Section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 which set out that the court in deciding questions of custod......
-
J v C
...after 1931 which coincides with the view of Viscount Cave in Ward v. Laverty (sup cit). Morton J. in In re B's Settlement v. Collins [1940] Ch. 54 said that whatever may have been the position before the 1925 Act, the Court is always bound, in dealing with questions of custody, to consider ......
Request a trial to view additional results