X v X (Y and Z Intervening)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2002 |
| Court | Family 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
31 cases
-
R.G v G.G (Divorce)
...PART III T (D) v T (C) 2002 3 IR 334 FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(1) FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(3) F v F 1995 2 IR 354 X v X 2002 1 FLR 508 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1973 S23 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1973 S25 FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S5(1)(a) FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S8(2)......
-
Tl v Ml and Others (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family)
...unreported), CA. Tebbutt v Haynes [1981] 2 All ER 238, CA. Thomas v Thomas[1996] 2 FCR 544, [1995] 2 FLR 668, CA. X v X (Y intervening) [2002] 1 FLR 508. ClaimThe wife made a claim for ancillary relief. The husband resisted her claim and also appealed against the order for maintenance pendi......
-
MacLeod v MacLeod
...of converting a freely negotiated agreement to compromise divorce proceedings into an order of the court is X v X (Y and Z intervening) [2002] 1 FLR 508. The Edgar principles have also been said to apply to a post-nuptial agreement made when the marriage was in great difficulties in NA v MA......
-
NG v KR (Pre-nuptial Contract)
...Law? 109 ) I accept the submission by Mr Mostyn QC that pre-nuptial agreements are not enforceable, per se, in English Law. In X v X (Y and Z Intervening) [2002] 1 FLR 508 Munby J set out in convenient form the current position In particular Paragraphs 78–81: “[78] In this area of the law t......
Request a trial to view additional results