header-logo header-logo

04 April 2008
Issue: 7315 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

B v B [2008] EWCA Civ 543, [2008] All ER (D) 282 (Mar)

Lord Justice Wall said that the “big money” cases which have reached the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords are of very limited assistance in dealing with smaller cases in which there is simply not enough money to go round. In every case the court must ask itself two questions:

(i) is the outcome fair in all the circumstances of the case and

(ii) is it in any way discriminatory? The court must follow White v White [2001] 1 All ER 1, and look at the extent to which the court has departed from equality. But this latter exercise is a check: the primary objectives remain fairness and an absence of discrimination.
 

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll