Family Law Cases

Marriage
Hyde v Hyde - voluntary union between man and woman
Parry v UK - Transexual must sacrafice either gender or their marriage
Wilkinson v Kitzinger
Void Marriage
Hudson v Leigh -
Gereis v Yagoub - knowingly and willingly disgard formalities - void marriage
Chief Adjudicating Officer v Bath - if you arent aware that formalities weren't complied
with presumed marriage is valid
Ghandi v Patel -
Goodwin v UK and Bellinger v Bellinger and GRA 2004 allow legal change of sex to
marry.
Voidable grounds
D v A it must be ordinary and complete and not partial or imperfect
S v S - must be incurable and permanent
G v G - if impotent with wife - but not someone else - must be invincible repugnance
Buckland v Buckland - threat to life or limb destroys consent -
C v C - must be a mistake as to the person, not their attributes
Valier v Valier - didn't realize he was signing a final register was
voidable mistake.
Sullivan v Sullivan - drunken mistake is not enough
Sheffield CC v E - if you have capacity - courts can't prevent even if believed unwise
Civil Partnership
Divorce
Adultery & Intolerability (ONLY MARRIAGE)
Redpath v Redpath - It must be voluntary and not rape
Dennis v Dennis - Must be heterosexual full sex.
Cleary v Cleary - Two dont have to be causally linked.
Goodrich v Goodrich - Intolerability is subjective.
Cohabitation after of <6 months is fine per s2 MCA.
Behaviour
Pheasant v Pheasant - Sexual complaints arent sufficient.
ONeill v ONeill - Collection of trivial acts is good.
Stevens v Stevens - Physical or emotional abuse is good.
Carter-Fea v Carter-Fea - Financial Irresponsibility.
6. Cohabitation <6 months is fine per s2(3) MCA or s45(6) CPA.
Desertion
- Must be for two years
Le Brocq v Le Brocq - living together separately it isnt good.
Glennister v Glennister - Must leave without good reason: Belief in adultery or mental
illness isnt good.
4. Cohabitation <6 months is fine per s2(3) MCA or s45(6) CPA.
2 years separation with consent (NO FAULT)
Hopes v Hopes and Mauncer v Mauncer - Only separation not living apart together.
Fuller v Fuller - Unless husband incapable of living elsewhere and lover moved in
Financial ordering after separation
White v White - aim for division of assets is FAIRNESS
Miller; McFarlane defined FAIRNESS as NEEDS; COMPENSATION; SHARING
Needs
K v K - Periodical Payments - end on remarriage -but can be lessened during cohabitation
Compensation
Miller; McFarlane - W can be compensated for her loss of earnings and thereby
enhancement of Hs earnings.
Parlour v Parlour - W can earn share of Hs future earnings
White v White - No discrimination between homemaker and breadwinner.
Miller; McFarlane - An affair cannot be taken into account
H v H - obvious and gross conduct can be such as attempted murder can
K v L - sexual assault of children can also be taken into account
S v S - but not domestic violence.
Inglis - says more emphasis should be placed on domestic violence.
The assets
White v White
Miller; McFarlane
S v AG - lottery ticket bought on their own doesn't need to be shared unless bought
family asset
Orders and agreements
Hyman Principle - Agreement cannot oust jurisdiction of the court
Radmacher v Granatino - nuptial agreement entered into freely with appreciation for what
it is are good unless unfair to do so
Edgar v Edgar - W wanted to gain independence - so received a lot less than she could've
K v K - periodical payments lessen under cohabitation - if not recognized - no point
remarrying
Cohabitation
Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission - three signs of cohabitation - sex - living
together - joint account
Co-ownership
Stack v Dowden - Presumption that equity follows law
Goodman v Gallant - Equitable joint tenancy can be severed with a presumption of equal
shares
Written notice: s36(2) LPA.
Harris v Goddard - No consent needed
Re Drapers - judicial determination suffices
Kinch v Bullard - Conveyance is effective even if not received/read.
Act operating on own share
Williams v Hensman - Such as transfer of his share as unity of
title destroyed
First National Securities v Hegerty - mortgaging
HSBC v Dyche - bankruptcy
Williams v Hensman - a will isnt sufficient.
Mutual Agreement of all joint tenants. Presumption its split equally.
Mutual Conduct - Falls short of agreement
Re Wilfords Estate - mutual wills.
Homicide -
Re K - Murder doesnt survive the JT, but merely holds on trust for the victims
estate(dcd) which can be amended under the Forfeiture Act, such as in this case of
domestic violence, leaving JT intact
Trusts
Express Any clear express declaration of trust? Conclusive per Pettitt v
Pettitt. Declaration must be in writing to be enforceable per s53(1)(b) LPA
Constructive This is informal creation and can be done orally per s53(1)(c)
LPA. Need to prove Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Paul v Constance - money is as much yours as it is mine
Proprietary estoppel
Yeomans Row v Cobbe - subject to contract - wasn't worth paper it was written on
There must be (i) Representation (ii) C acted on that understanding (iii)
Unconscionable for D to renege.
Lissimore v Downing - must specific interest in land - not vague financial security -
representation
Thorner v Major - conduct can be enough - silent farmer - mutual understanding
Gillett v Holt - giving up your job in reliance
Thompson v Foy - improving realtor's property
Grant v Edwards - household contributions
Remedy - Equity must be satisfied
Fee simple - Gillett v holt and Jennings v Rice
Inwards v Baker - occupational license
Dodsworth v Dodsworth - monetary compensation
Hussey v Palmer - beneficial interest
Jennings v Rice endorsed the Expectation approach where clear understanding or
compensatory where uncertain or vague

Domestic abuse
Protecting vulnerable adults
Opuz v Turkey - state obligation to protect against domestic violence under art 2-3 -
breach for condoning victims withdrawal as family matter -
Civil law protection
Khorsandjian v Bush - CL prohibits assault, battery and false imprisonment as well as
harassing behaviour leading to psychiatric injury
Non-molestation orders
Vaughan v Vaughan - So stalking
Horner v Horner - persistent telephone calls coupled with intent to cause distress
Banks v Banks - phone calls but can't control behaviour
G v G (Occupational Order) - fault is irrelevant it is the effect that matters
Johnson v Walton - The order can last for a defined period or indefinitely.
Re BJ - Lady Hale - power of arrest - not oppressive - stop unacceptable conduct
Occupational orders
Chalmers v John - check the balance of harm test (s33(7)) - if not satisfied check s33(6)
consider all circumstances
Nwogbe v Nwogbe - cover rent, mortgages, bills - no enforcement so useless
B v B - shouldn't be evicted if has his own son to care for
Re Y - cant convict if house is designed to suit his disability
Chaudhary v Chaudhary - also when sharing the house with his family
Human rights and occupational orders
Davis v Johnson - Where Arts 2-3 apply, they are absolute rights, so no balancing
necessary, V must be protected
But in less serious cases, Art 8requires balancing so Ds child may be considered as in B
v B.
D's rights discounted per Art 17