Artro Morris, John Evan, (17 Feb. 1925–15 April 2014), District Judge, Principal Registry of the Family Division (formerly a Registrar of the Supreme Court, Family Division), 1977–95

2007 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

6. The Structure of the Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-224
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (ie excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (ie which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroner’s Courts.

6. The Structure of the Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisdair Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (i.e. excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (i.e. which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroners’ Courts.

6. The Structure of the Courts

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-224
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (i.e. excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (i.e. which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroner’s Courts.

scholarly journals Nils Eberhard Svedelius, 1873-1960

1961 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 294-312
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Army Officers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Old Swedish ◽  
High Government

Nils Svedelius came of old Swedish stock. His first known ancestor was one Nils Andersson, a farmer in the parish of Leksand in Dalecarlia, who lived in the middle of the 16th century. In the early 17th century one of his grandsons entered holy orders and became vicar of Rattvik parish. In those days, small-scale farming was an important side activity for country parsons. During his tenure, a good piece of land belonging to the parsonage and known as Sveden was brought under the plough, and from this place his grandchildren took the family name Svedelius. From them all the bearers of the name are descended, among them many prominent citizens, high government officials, army officers, merchants and teachers, the most widely known being the historian Vilhelm Erik Svedelius (1816-1889), still something of a legendary figure in the academic annals of Uppsala. But as far as is known to the present writer, none of them ever took any special interest in natural history. Only one of them, the man whose life and work are the object of this article, became a man of science. Nils Eberhard Svedelius was born in Stockholm on 5 August 1873, the second son of Supreme Court Justice Carl Svedelius, L.L.D., and of his wife Ebba Katarina, who came of the old noble family Skytte af Satra. Nils’s elder brother studied law and, like his father, became a Justice of the Supreme Court of Sweden.

scholarly journals INDIVIDUAL LEGAL ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON FAMILY DISPUTES CONCERNING PROPERTY

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 19-27
Author(s):  
O. N. Nizamieva
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article has analyzed the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on family disputes that involve property issues, revealed features of implementation of functions of the highest court in this field. First, it is stated that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviews decisions of lower courts mainly in cases where the application of family law rules is contradictory and unsettled. It is necessary to fill in a gap in family law, to resolve conflicts between certain legal norms, to choose between several possible interpretations of the law. Second, the judicial panels of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, making a determination on a particular case, clarify the meaning of legal norms, and sometimes under the guise of interpretation in fact correct ill-considered or outdated norms of family law. Third, the High Court reviews cases where there is a typical and widespread error in the application of a very clear and defined rule. Fourth, in individual legal acts it is possible to observe the concretization or change of the previously designated legal stances while maintaining the legislative rules in the same form. Using certain examples of cases considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on family disputes concerning property, the paper has demonstrated the mechanism of possible transformation of abstract, non-personified and doctrinally oriented provisions contained in the definitions of judicial boards of the Supreme Court to general legal regulators. The author has determined certain problems of legal regulation of property relations in the family that have not been settled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Negative Prerequisites for Dissolving Marriage by Divorce – Comments in the Light of Directives of the Supreme Court

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-87
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Anna Dziemianowicz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Minor Children ◽  
Unchanged Form ◽  
Made In ◽  
Special Protection

Abstract The issues discussed in the following article focus on the interpretation of negative prerequisites for dissolving marriage by divorce. In Poland, special protection of the family stems both from the Constitution and the Family and Guardianship Code of 1964. The obstacles which seem to counteract the independent breaking of the marriage knot are the regulated positive and negative divorce prerequisites. In the area of divorce prerequisites in question, the Family and Guardianship Code functions in the unchanged form. As provided by the Family and Guardianship Code one of the negative divorce prerequisites was the welfare of minor children who could suffer as a result of granting a divorce. It is interesting for the contemporary judicial practice and the interpretation of law made in court judgments whether and in what scope it is possible to use the contemporary achievements of the Supreme Court as regards the guidelines. It seems that in the situation where the directives lost their binding force, it is not purposeful to refer to them as a source of law interpretation. The practice of judicial decisions seems to oppose this idea. Moreover, the guidelines of the Supreme Court passed at the time when they were a commonly binding interpretation of the law will undoubtedly be useful for creating the judicial law now and in the future.

scholarly journals To the question of the peculiarities of the protection of the rights of spouses in cases of establishing the regime of separate residence of spouses

2021 ◽  
pp. 154-158
Author(s):  
O.А. Oksanyuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Common Life ◽  
Joint Management ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Right

In the scientific article the author conducted a scientific study of the peculiarities of protection of property and personal non-property rights of spouses in cases of establishing a regime of separate residence. Based on the above research, the author notes that the importance of the legal position in cases of establishing a regime of separate residence of spouses is the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine №11 of December 21, 2007 “On the practice of law enforcement, divorce, annulment and division of joint property of the spouses “, namely paragraph 12 of this resolution. Unfortunately, this document is the only legal position of the Supreme Court on the establishment of the legal regime of separate residence of spouses, so to determine the approaches of courts of general jurisdiction in considering this category of cases, you should refer to the analysis of individual court deci-sions. The analysis of the conducted case law allows to indicate that the main reasons that indicate the impossibility and / or unwillingness of the spouses to live together may indicate: lack of common life goals and family interests, which makes it impossible to live together and marital relations, long separate residence, lack of joint household , the presence of different views on life, lack of mutual understanding in the family, lack of joint management, lack of desire to continue living together, family disputes and conflicts that led to tense relationships, lack of intention to resume cohabitation, alcohol abuse, lack interest in raising one’s own child, quarrels and physical violence against the other spouse. The decision of the High Specialized Court of the Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Cases in Case №6-27361, according to which the existence of property disputes concerning joint joint ownership of spouses does not deprive the right to establish a separate residence regime, also has a certain legal position.

Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts of the Judgment

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-165
Author(s):  
Linda Gallant ◽  
Celia Wasserstein Fassberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
Majority Decision ◽  
Community Property ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Home ◽  
Bank Accounts

Nafisi v. Nafisi (1996) 50(iii) P.D. 573The parties were married in 1944 in Persia (Iran), where they were domiciled. In 1979 the husband visited Israel, and during his stay he bought a shop in Tel-Aviv, which he registered in his name. In 1983 the couple and their five children immigrated to Israel. They lived in an apartment registered in both their names. Shortly after their arrival in the country, the husband opened two bank accounts in his name and deposited amounts totalling $320,000, which he had brought with him from Persia. In 1987 the couple's marriage broke down. Despite the rift, they both continued to live in the family home. The wife petitioned the court for a declaratory judgment stating that the shop and the money deposited in the bank accounts were jointly owned by both spouses. The District Court ruled in her favour. The Supreme Court accepted the husband's appeal and held that the wife had failed to prove her right to community property. The wife requested a further hearing in the Supreme Court on the matter, and in the further hearing, the Court ruled in her favour, by a majority decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document