Family Law Hub

Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27

Judgment, published: 24/06/1999

Items referring to this

  • Appeal against a decision that the three children should be returned to Hungary despite the 2 older children objecting. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 11/06/2016, 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
  • Appeal against part of an order providing for an automatic increase in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife following the date upon which the youngest child ceased privately funded secondary education. Appeal allowed and that part of the order was set aside. Judgment, 04/02/2016, free
  • Judgment, 11/07/2002, free
  • In a tweet: Court has power to order sale of property to one beneficiary Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • On the evidence presented before the court, and judged by the doctrines of common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, the court found that the claimant had not proved her case that there had been an agreement between her and her cohabitee that she would share any profit after the farm, which was legally owned by the defendent, was sold. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • Judgment, 16/04/2003, free
  • The issue on this appeal was whether the child, who was the daughter of an Italian father and a Latvian mother, should be returned to Italy (which is agreed to have been her country of habitual residence at the relevant time) following her wrongful abduction from Italy to England by her mother in February 2016. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 31/10/2017, free
  • Judgment, 13/02/2013, 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
  • Claimant's appeal against the provision made to her by order of the District Judge under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The claimant's mother, who was estranged from her daughter, died and left her estate to three charities. The District Judge concluded that it was an "unreasonable result" that no provision at all was made for the claimant in circumstances where she was in some financial need and awarded her £50,000. The claimant appealed the sum but she lost, the judge saying that the District Judge was not manifestly wrong, or even wrong, in taking the view that notwithstanding that the claimant and her husband and family lived in straightened circumstances, the fact they had done so for so many years did not justify an award which improved their circumstances. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a leave to remove order. In brief: The father (“F”) sought to appeal a leave to remove order in proceedings where the mother (“M”) had been able to establish that he had acted in an angry, violent or otherwise inappropriate manner towards the child. The trial judge’s approach could not be criticised. It had been welfare-based, full weight had been given to the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with F and F’s proposals had not been ignored. Judgment, 05/10/2016, 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
  • Father's appeal against an order granting permission for the respondent mother to relocate to Moscow with the two children. The issues central to the appeal were: (i) whether the judge attributed too great a weight to the mother's relationship with her present husband (the step-father) at the expense of focusing upon the children's relationship with their father and other welfare issues and (ii) whether he failed sufficiently to analyse the evidence in the case, in particular evidence directed to establishing the mother's motivation in seeking permission to relocate. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 01/11/2016, free
  • Judgment, 17/12/2008, free
  • Judgment, 19/12/2008, free
  • Case note, 09/05/2011, members only
  • Husband's appeal against the refusal of his application to vary a periodical payments order and against the capitalisation of the order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/04/2017, free
  • Appeal by husband against a suspended committal order, variation order and order for costs. The committal order was set aside due to procedural errors, the costs order falling with it, but the appeal against the variation order failed. Judgment, 11/08/2016, free
  • Judgment, 19/12/2006, free
  • Judgment, 25/07/2007, free
  • Appeal against a refusal to grant a wife a decree nisi of divorce on the basis that the wife had failed to prove, within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, even though the judge had found as a fact that the marriage had broken down. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/03/2017, free
  • Father's appeal against an order permitting the mother of the child to remove her permanently from this country to live in Sweden. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 26/03/2015, free
  • Judgment, 04/10/2012, free
  • Appeal by the father against the decision to make a child arrangements order in favour of the mother in respect of their son. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2008, free
  • Case note, 05/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 15/03/2006, free
  • Appeal against a finding that the divorced ex-partner of the deceased and the estate of the deceased himself were entitled to half each of the beneficial interest in a property. Appeal also against a costs order. First appeal dismissed and the costs order allowed. Judgment, 01/05/2018, free
  • Judgment, 26/10/2000, free
  • Appeal by husband in financial remedy proceedings against decision that the matrimonial assets should be shared equally on the grounds that he had made a special contribution. Appeal dismissed as the trial judge could not be found to be wrong. Judgment, 13/04/2017, free

Published: 24/06/1999


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