Siddiqui v Siddiqui: Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of 41 year-old man's financial claims against parents
 |
| Photo by Damir Spanic on Unsplash |
This is just a very quick note to mention that the Court of Appeal has dismissed an application for permission to appeal by a 41 year-old man (as he then was) from the summary dismissal of his claims for financial orders against his parents, under section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 15 and Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, and under the inherent jurisdiction.
The claims had been dismissed by Sir James Munby, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on the 30th of September 2020, as I explained here in this post.
Having already written here about Sir James's judgment, I do not propose to go through the (lengthy) judgment of the Court of Appeal, which you can find here.
The only surprising thing about this to me is that the man decided it was worth trying to appeal.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.