The Digital Portal in the London FRC 27-10-22
The Digital Portal in the London FRC 27-10-22 (1)the-digital-portal-in-the-london-frc-27-10-22-1.pdf111 KBdownload-circle
thomas j thickett
Quashie v Solomon [2022] UKPC 34
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2022/34.html
The Privy Council heard an appeal concerning promissory and proprietary estoppel and the time for enforcing interests held under constructive trusts.
Mr and Mrs Solomon married in 1978 and divorced in 1981. They had one child, Ayana, the respondent to
Ralph v Given [2022] EWHC 2395 (KB)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2022/2395.html
Freedman J. Claimant’s application for summary judgment in relation to application to deliver up an Aston Martin DBX and a Range Rover Sport or damages for conversion. C argued these were gifts. The claimant (C) and defendant (D)
CF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 271 (AAC)
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2022/271.html
Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley. Decision in relation to proper procedure in child maintenance appeals. First tier judge had determined F’s appeal (against decision that child was still a qualifying child) on paper without hearing. Rule 27 of the
AIC Ltd (Respondent) v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (Appellant) [2022] UKSC 16
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2022/16
Lords Hodge, Briggs, Sales, Hamblen and Leggatt. What should a judge do when, shortly after oral judgment but before a formal written minute of the order has been sealed, one of the parties asks the judge to reconsider the judgment and the
SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2022/115
HHJ Hess. Judgment concerning divorce proceedings, domicile and the most appropriate forum.
The parties met and married in England; the W was originally from South Africa. They had moved to the UAE in 2008 and remained there due to the H’s
Nieman v Withers LLP [2022] EWHC 2237 (QB)
Andrew Baker J. H brought a claim against Withers LLP on the ground that Withers had provided him with negligent advice in the context of his divorce, and that the terms agreed with W by way of financial settlement following their divorce were not as good as they should have