How many times has [2001] Ch 210 been cited?

[2001] Ch 210 is cited by 4 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2001] Ch 210

· cited by 4 · influence score 14/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

[2001] Ch 210

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 4

Cited — Lee Hudson v Jayne Hathway 2022-12-14
“…In Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 Robert Walker LJ said at 232:…”
Cited — Guest & Anor v Guest 2020-03-17
“…tertwined, and whether there is a distinct need for a "mutual understanding" may depend on how the other elements are formulated and understood: Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 at 225; Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3; [2010] 1 All ER 988 at [37].…”
Cited — Habberfield v Habberfield 2019-05-23
“…hat she had “positioned her working life” on Frank and Jane’s assurances. That detriment was incapable of reduction to pounds and pence: compare Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 at 234-5. The judge so found at [225].…”
Cited — Moore v Moore & Anor 2018-11-27
“…tertwined, and whether there is a distinct need for a “mutual understanding” may depend on how the other elements are formulated and understood: Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch. 210 at 225; Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3; [2010] 1 All ER 988 at [37].…”