Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected]
MR. P. MARSHALL QC (instructed by Withers) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR. T. SCOTT QC and Mr Brent Molyneux (instructed by Gordon Dadds) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ____________________
Therefore, an order which has been varied on the basis of changing circumstances is expressly said not to be irreconcilable with the earlier order.
He submits that the procedure for recognition of a judgment given in a protocol state contained in Article 17 to 22 of the Maintenance Regulation is a fully streamlined procedure and deliberately omits the grounds for non-recognition which appear both in Brussels I Article 34 and in the non-protocol state code, Article 24: although I note that no such ground would seem to be relevant here.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.