Sentences with phrase «against ancillary relief»

Permission to appeal against ancillary relief orders (after Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening)[1988] AC 20, [1987] 2 FLR 480, HL) has been in the reports recently; but in two cases which only emphasise that, for such an application to succeed, the circumstances must be exceptional.

Not exact matches

The problem is easily illustrated by SW v RC [2008] EWHC 73 (Fam), where Mr Justice Singer contrasted the meanings of 14 days from «the determination against which the appeal» (in FPR 1991 r 4.22 (3): Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), Sch 1 proceedings) as against from «the date of the order or decision appealed against» in r 8.1 (4)(ancillary relief proceedings); and what for this purpose, he asked, «constitutes a «determination», and an «order or decision»?»

Acted for a Russian bank in relation to enforcement of an LCIA award by a Russian bank against assets in Cyprus and elsewhere in Europe, and ancillary relief to preserve assets

Its logic may prove to be indicative of harder times blowing in favour of creditors trustees against the family; or an appellate court may find that a decision in the ancillary relief jurisdiction overrides s 339.

It [was] also submitted that in cases of contested ancillary relief proceedings if the order made is liable to be set aside under s 339 then as a matter of course the statutory discretion should be exercised against making any such order.»

Thorpe LJ then referred to the balance between protecting the creditors against collusive orders in ancillary relief and protection orders justly made at arm's length for the protection of one of the spouses and the children of the family.

Reported cases include: Gill v Meyers (reasonableness and UCTA), Films Rover v Cannon Film Sales (test for grant of mandatory interlocutory injunction), Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC and others (for SGS); Mattis v Toussaint (acted for defendant in successfully resisting claim for finder's fee in respect of stolen painting), Yukong Lines v Rendsburg — The Rialto (tortious conspiracy and ancillary injunctive relief against controller of corporation), REC v Thames Water (test for grant of interlocutory injunction in field of electricity supply), De Molestina and Others v Ponton (acted for defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (claim on state guarantee)

However, King J explained: I do not take Smith v Smith to be saying that the court must always hear a case as a full blown ancillary relief hearing where there is an alleged agreement, but rather as a trenchant reminder that an agreement forms part of all the circumstances of a case and that, even if such an agreement be found to be of magnetic importance, the court should only ever consider such an agreement against the backdrop of all the s 25 factors.