|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors  EWHC 566 (Ch) (20 February 2019)
Cite as:  EWHC 566 (Ch)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| (1) PHILLIP GREGORY
(2) WILLIAM WILKINS
- and -
|(1) JULIANNA MOORE
|(2) IRENE PRING
(3) SHAUGHAN PRING
|Second and Third Defendants/Appellants
MR J. McLINDEN QC (instructed by JFS Cabot, Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the first Defendant.
MR L. BLOHM QC (instructed by Stephens Scown LLP, Exeter) appeared on behalf of the second and third Defendants.
Crown Copyright ©
MRS JUSTICE FALK:
"… the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing".
"… a person who has unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death",
is treated as having unlawfully killed the deceased.
"(17) In September 2008, the first defendant applied to the court in Kiev, claiming full ownership of the Geroiv Stalingradu Prospect apartment. She falsely informed the judge that she had bought the apartment with her own personal money and was entitled to full ownership of it. She subsequently withdrew her claim.
(18) In truth, the first defendant married the deceased for his money, took advantage of him financially when they were married, and caused his death to rid herself of him and for her own financial benefit when it was likely that the marriage would otherwise have soon have [sic] come to an end."
"…took advantage of him financially when they were married…".
The Chief Master's decision
"… take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective…".
The parties' submissions
"(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings….".
"The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was—
(a) wrong; or
(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity…".
"… that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or has taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision was wholly wrong because the [appeal] court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly…".
Opus 2 International Limited hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the Judgment or part thereof.
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
This transcript has bene approved by the Judge