header-logo header-logo

23 September 2010 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7434 / Categories: Case law , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil Way: 24 September 2010

So what do you know? Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244 wasn’t quite what it was cooked up to be.

HILDEBRANDED

So what do you know? Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244 wasn’t quite what it was cooked up to be.  The so-called Hildebrand Rules had encouraged parties to ancillary relief applications to access documents belonging to their spouses whether or not they were confidential, provided force was not used. Once access had been gained, the obtaining spouse had the thumbs-up to retain and use copies—though not the originals—but the copies were to be disclosed when a questionnaire was served or in response to an earlier request. It transpires that the Hildebrand Rules are pukka enough about when the accessed documents are to be handed over but, as for the rest, forget them! 
 
And so Hildebrand is not—and watch our lips—authority for the proposition that a spouse may in circumstances that would otherwise be unlawful, take, copy and then retain copies of confidential documents in ancillaryreliefland. The Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll