Family Law Hub

G v G [1985] UKHL 13

Judgment, published: 31/12/1985

Items referring to this

  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • In brief: Mr Justice MacDonald told off the barristers involved in this case (which concerns how much contact a 13 year old should have with her father (“F”) for the way they constantly interrupted one another. The interruptions had meant that important points were not raised or followed through which did not help the trial judge in making a sound decision. The expert psychologist was also criticised for producing a report at the last minute that was of poor quality and of no real help. Judgment, 22/03/2018, free
  • Application by Trustee in Bankruptcy against an order that the property, which was the only asset of any value in the bankruptcy, should not be sold until the 30 year old vulnerable child of the bankrupt, who resided at the property, no longer lived there. The application was allowed and an order that the longest period of postponement of 12 months was made. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • H's appeal against a financial provision order which included an order providing for the payment of 25% of H's annual bonus to W. King J allowed the appeal to the extent that the District Judge should have imposed a cap on the amount the W could receive. She said that "the inherent uncertainty of bonus payments provides, in part, the reason why that the setting of a cap is essential in order to avoid the unintentional unfairness which may arise as a consequence of a wholly unanticipated substantial bonus paid to the H. Such a payment would result in W receiving a sum substantially in excess of that which the District Judge regarded as appropriate in order to maintain her maintenance at a fair level." Judgment, 20/01/2014, free
  • Appeal by wife against decision to set aside a financial remedy order on the grounds that by giving judgment prior to the granting of decree nisi the judge had made an made an order in breach of s23 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which prohibits the making of an order in financial remedy proceedings prior to decree nisi. Appeal allowed and costs order made against the husband. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • Appeal against an order whereby the court found that at the date of her divorce petition, the applicant wife had acquired a domicile of choice in England, her domicile of origin being in Ireland, and was therefore entitled to proceed with her divorce suit in England under s5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and Article 7 of the EU Regulation 2201 of 2003. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 15/06/2018, free
  • Appeal against 6 findings of fact made about the father in a case concerning contact, where it was submitted that each finding was demonstrable contrary to the weight of the evidence. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • When considering whether to make a shared residence order where the child spent three days each week with the father, the judge had been entitled to find that the mother remained the primary carer and had not fallen into the error of identifying the interests of the mother with those of the child when considering the effect on the child of the mother's relocation. Judgment, 24/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free

Published: 31/12/1985


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item