- Cited — Paul Mark Simon v Lauren Belinda Simon & Anor 2023-09-15
“…s: Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2015] 2 FLR 1367 at [29]. Although the court should not act as a ‘bloodhound or a ferret’ (L v L [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 26 at [73]), it does retain an inquisitorial role as s25 MCA 1973 sets out the ‘Matters to which the court is to have regard in deciding how to exercise its power…”
- Cited — Sofia Bogolyubova v Gennadiy Bogolyubov & Anor 2023-05-18
“…[2008] 1 FLR 26…”
- Cited — Haley v Haley 2020-10-23
“…oper exercise of the court’s inquisitorial jurisdiction, in relation to the making of consent orders, was graphically described in L v L [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 26 at [73], as being not “a rubber stamp” but that, whilst the court must always exercise a discretion, it should not be to the extent of acting as “a bloodhound …”
- Cited — Haley v Haley 2020-10-23
“…[2008] 1 FLR 26…”
- Cited — Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd & Ors 2018-11-02
“…] 1 WLR 634. This and other procedural issues do, however, arise in Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2016] AC 849, which was heard at the same time as this case. In L v L [2008] 1 FLR 26,Munby J described this problem as “a procedural quagmire”: para 39. There are three possible routes: (i) a fresh action to set aside the order; (ii) an appeal …”