header-logo header-logo

13 June 2014
Issue: 7610 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Divorce

Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655, [2014] All ER (D) 28 (Jun)

The proceedings concerned an application for divorce by the wife.  Consideration was given to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010).

The husband submitted that the provisions of Rule 4.6 FPR 2010, which set out the circumstances where relief from sanctions might be available, ought to have been taken into account. The wife, while agreeing that the FPR 2010 was relevant, submitted that the judge had not needed to refer to it explicitly, and that his decision had sufficiently taken its provisions into account.

The Court of Appeal held that a judge had to have regard to r 4.6 FPR 2010, but that did not remove the force of the old authorities. The decision to be taken involved an amalgam of procedural rules and authorities. A consideration of an application to have a certificate set aside and for leave to file an answer out of time would therefore require a consideration of all of the circumstances of the case, including those spelled out in

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