Download Reading Uni Case Study: Online Research on Case Law - Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
University of Reading Case Study
Researching Case Law Developments Online [Westlaw UK exercise]
Formative assessment - Questions
1. Locate and read the case report for Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 on Westlaw UK. In which court was this case heard?
a. County Court
b. Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
c. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
d. High Court (Chancery Division)
e. House of Lords
f. Lands Tribunal
2. According to the court, might Burns v Burns have been decided differently if the parties had been married?
a. Yes, the court would have had jurisdiction to make an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
b. No, the same legal principles in determining plaintiff’s interest in the house would have applied irrespective of marital status
c. It is not clear, because no opinion was given on this point
3. Using the Case Analysis information on Westlaw UK, which one of the following cases was NOT cited in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317?
a. Bernard v Josephs [1982] Ch. 391
b. Diwell v Farnes [1959] 1 W.L.R. 624
c. Falconer v Falconer [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1333
d. Gissing v Gissing [1971] A.C. 886
e. Hine v Hine [1962] 1 W.L.R 1124
f. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] A.C. 777
4. Of the following cases, which was the earliest in which Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 was
6. How many cases have applied Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317?
- a. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. judicially cited?
- b. Bristol and West Building Society v Henning [1985] 1 W.L.R.
- c. Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC
- d. Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch.
- e. Winkworth v Edward Baron Development Co Ltd (1986) 52 P. & C.R.
- f. Young v Young (Equitable Interests) [1984] Fam. Law
- a. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. 5. In which case was Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 distinguished?
- b. Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch.
- c. Layton v Martin [1986] 2 F.L.R.
- d. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL
- e. Windeler v Whitehall (1990) 154 J.P.
- f. Young v Young (Equitable Interests) [1984] Fam. Law
- b. a. None
- c.
- d.
- e.
- f.
1. Locate and read the case report for Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 on Westlaw UK. In which court was this case heard?
Selected Answer:
b.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Correct Answer:
b.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Response Feedback:
Yes, correct. The report is of a civil case heard in the Court of Appeal, as stated both at the top of the case report and in the initial search result for the case.
2. According to the court, might Burns v Burns have been decided differently if the parties had been married?
Selected Answer:
b.
No, the same legal principles in determining plaintiff’s interest in the house would have applied irrespective of marital status
Correct Answer:
a.
Yes, the court would have had jurisdiction to make an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Response Feedback:
Sorry, incorrect. Read the judgments closely. In his judgment, Lord Justice Fox notes, "The court has no jurisdiction to make such order as it might think fair; the powers conferred by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in relation to the property of married persons do not apply to unmarried couples." The same distinction is also drawn in the opening paragraph of Lord Justice May's judgment.
3. Using the Case Analysis information on Westlaw UK, which one of the following cases was NOT cited in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317?
Selected Answer:
b.
Diwell v Farnes [1959] 1 W.L.R. 624
Correct Answer:
e.
Hine v Hine [1962] 1 W.L.R 1124
Response Feedback:
Sorry, incorrect. For the correct answer, make sure you are referring to the All Cases Cited listing in the Case Analysis, not the Significant Cases Cited or the Cases Citing. Neither Diwell v Farnes or Bernard v Josephs are listed in the Significant Cases Cited but both are included in the All Cases Cited listing. The correct answer, Hine v Hine , does not appear in the All Cases Cited listing.
4. Of the following cases, which was the earliest in which Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 was judicially cited?
Selected Answer:
f.
Young v Young (Equitable Interests) [1984] Fam. Law 271
Correct Answer:
f.
Young v Young (Equitable Interests) [1984] Fam. Law 271
Response Feedback:
Yes, correct. The All Cases Citing listing is initially ordered by date, with the most recent case citing Burns v Burns at the top. The earliest cases therefore appear at the bottom of this listing, with Young v Young (Equitable Interests) second from bottom and the earliest to cite Burns v Burns of the options given. For your information, the judgment in the unreported case listed last - Philip Lowe (Chinese Restaurant) Limited v Sau Man Lee - is out of correct time sequence due to a database error, and was in fact not given until 9 July 1985.
7. Can a formal law report of the judgment in Windeler v Whitehall (1990) 154 J.P. 29 be read on Westlaw UK?
Selected Answer:
b.
No, Westlaw UK does not provide the full-text of any of the formal law reports of this case to read
Correct Answer:
b.
No, Westlaw UK does not provide the full-text of any of the formal law reports of this case to read
Response Feedback:
Yes, correct. None of the three law report citations on the Case Analysis page for Windeler v Whitehall is an active link, meaning those particular reports are not provided on Westlaw UK. Only a brief case digest summarising the judgment is provided on the Case Analysis page. For your information, you'll find the Family Law Reports (F.L.R.) available on the Library's Family Law Online database, and both the Family Court Reports (F.C.R.) and Justice of the Peace Reports (J.P.) on LexisLibrary.
8. In total, how many House of Lords and Supreme Court cases have cited Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317?
Selected Answer:
e.
4
Correct Answer:
e.
4
Response Feedback:
Yes, correct. Sorting All Cases Citing by Court shows Burns v Burns has been cited a total of 4 times in the House of Lords and Supreme Court, in Winkworth v Edward Baron Development Co Ltd [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1512, Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1991] 1 A.C. 107, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and, most recently, Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29.
9. How was the decision in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317 treated by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17?
Selected Answer:
d.
It was followed
Correct Answer:
f.
It was mentioned
Response Feedback:
Sorry, incorrect. Look carefully down the All Cases Citing list for Burns v Burns for the entry relating to Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. Above this entry, the indication of the nature of the judicial treatment in the case is stated in bold
- "Mentioned by". To understand the legal reasoning and context in which the case was mentioned, and so assess any developments impacting on Burns v Burns in Stack v Dowden , you would need to read the actual judgment of the House of Lords in the case.
