Results: 26

  • Spawforth v Spawforth

    23 Jan 1946 [1946] P 131, PDA

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    DIVORCEPetitionSupplemental petition
  • Baindail (orse Lawson) v Baindail

    30 Jan 1946 [1946] P 122, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 5 positive; 5 neutral. Subsequent citations: 10.
    MARRIAGENullity of marriageHindu marriage
  • Tolten, The

    16 Apr 1946 [1946] P 135, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 10.
    SHIPPINGDamageCollision with wharf at Lagos
  • The Salerno

    06 Jun 1946 [1946] P 189, PDA

    ADMIRALTYPrize courtPractice
  • The Princesa

    09 Jul 1945 [1946] P 79, CA

    SHIPPINGTowageCardiff tug owners' rates for steamers
  • Wolfenden v Wolfenden

    27 Jul 1945 [1946] P 61, PDA

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive.
    DIVORCENullityCommon law marriage in China.
    July 27. LORD MERRIMAN P., having stated the facts, continued: The question is whether or not this ceremony, although the parties undoubtedly thought it was not fully effective, did effect a valid marriage. That it did not conform with the Foreign Marriage Act is made quite clear indeed there is no dispute about it — by a Foreign Office Certificate dated June 4, 1945, under the hand of the late Prime Minister and under the seal of the Foreign Office duly put in before me. It was suggested that I might have to consider whether the marriage conformed to the
  • Perks v Perks

    12 Oct 1945 [1946] P 1, CA

    JUSTICESHusband and wifeOrder of court of summary jurisdiction for custody of child and for maintenance
  • Cowen v Cowen

    16 Jul 1945 [1946] P 36, CA

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    DIVORCEWife's petition NullityAgreement between parties to prevent pregnancy while resident in Persia
  • In The Estate of G, Decd, M v L

    20 Feb 1946 [1946] P 183, PDA

    PROBATEPleadingAction setting up will
  • Beard v Beard

    24 Jul 1945 [1946] P 8, CA

    Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 2.
    DIVORCECondoned adulteryRevival by subsequent desertion for less than three years.
    SCOTT L.J. This appeal raises the important question, on which opposing views have been taken during the last two years in the Divorce Court, whether a matrimonial wrong, insufficient of itself to entitle the injured spouse to a decree of divorce, nevertheless suffices to remove the bar effected by a previous condonation and thus to revive the original right of the injured spouse to a decree by reason of the former wrong. Pilcher J. answered the question in the affirmative in Higgins v. Higgins. Barnard J. in Ainley v. Ainley, and Wallington J. in Harrison v. Harrison, a case decided

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies