September 2 2008
START DATE
END DATE
March 17 2009
W v M
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
FAMILY LAW CHILDREN LAW
KAWALEY J
Jacqueline MacLellan (MacLellan & Associates) for the Applicant
Georgia Marshall (Marshall Diel & Myers) for the Respondent
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Mother applied for joint custody care and control of their son M.M. and related financial relief under Minors Act 1950 and Children Act 1998. Father agreed to joint custody but sought joint care and control as well. Dispute over the scope of father?s maintenance obligations
SUMMARY:
Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant certain financial reliefs under the Children Act appropriate amount of child maintenance and the scope of father?s maintenance obligations
OUTCOMES:
Joint custody awarded to both parents care and control to mother financial maintenance to be paid by father. The court does not possess jurisdiction to make orders for lump sum payments not directly related to maintenance
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Plaintiff/Claimant
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies