How many times has [2006] UKHL 24 been cited?

[2006] UKHL 24 is cited by 5 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2006] UKHL 24

· cited by 5 · 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

[2006] UKHL 24

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

Cited · 4Considered · 1

Considered — XW v XH 2019-12-18
“…at the method he or she selects to determine this issue leads to an award which, to quote Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618, [2006] 2 WLR 1283, [2006] 1 FLR 1186, at para [27], the judge considers gives 'to the contribution made by one party's non-matrimonial proper…”
Cited — Martin v Martin (Rev 1) 2018-12-21
“…[2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186…”
Cited — Villiers v Villiers 2018-05-17
“…[2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618, paras 16, 141.…”
Cited — Versteegh v Versteegh 2018-05-10
“…In my judgment it is however the observation of Lord Nicholls in Miller and McFarlane[2006] UKHL 24;[2006] 1FLR 1186 which continues to carry the day:…”
Cited — Versteegh v Versteegh 2018-05-10
“… LJ highlighted the fact that the vulnerability of valuations had been specifically recognised by the House of Lords in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186. Moylan LJ said:…”