Re K. R (an Infant)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Year1963
Date1963

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
10 cases
  • Re Chs
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1997
  • Re C. (A.) (an Infant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Bawden v Bawden (Note)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 December 1975
    ...its care, and the jurisdiction of the court revives in toto. 32 The other case which I would cite is a decision of the Court of Appeal in Res (An Infant), which is reported in 1965 (1) Weekly Law Reports at page 464. There Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Danckwerts, made......
  • Krishnan v Sutton London Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 July 1969
    ... ... Justice Pennycuick, the name of which is In re K.R., reported in 1964 1 Chancery Division, is right, and the effect of it is thatsection 1 (3) of the Children Act, 1948, imposes no mandatory obligation to return the infant to its parents. Suppose, however, that that were wrong and that it were a matter of discretion of this Court as to whether or not the mandatory injunctions, or some similar injunctions, asked for by the plaintiff ought to be granted. In my judgment, it is quite impossible to say that this Court, in ... ...
  • Get Started for Free