Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Production of a text:Hammond v. Mitchell [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1127

  • Case Notes
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. See e.g. Anne Bottomley, “Self and Subjectivities: Languages of Claim in Property Law”, in Anne Bottomley and Joanne Conaghan, eds.,Feminist Theory and Legal Strategy (Oxford: Blackwells, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  2. At page 122, actually quoting Nourse J. inGrant v.Edwards [1986] 2 All E.R. 426 at 431.

  3. An interesting example of “lag” in relation to reporting family property cases isMescher v.Mescher; heard in 1973 (Times Law Reports Feb. 13) but not reported in All England until [1980] 1 All E.R. 126. Throughout the later 1970'sMescher orders were discussed and the case alluded to, yet only in 1980 did All England “catch up”.

  4. [1992] 2 All E.R. 109.

  5. Anna Lawson, “Acquiring a Beneficial Interest in the Matrimonial Home — Hammond v. Mitchell”,Conveyancer (1992), 218.

  6. Linda Clarke and Rod Edmunds, “H v. M. Equity & Essex Cohabitant”,Family Law 22 (1992), 523.

    Google Scholar 

  7. At page 63.

  8. London: Macmillan, 1993, 2nd.ed. (Macmillain Professional Masters).

  9. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1993, 15th ed.

  10. At page 265.

  11. (1987) 1 F.L.R. 352.

  12. See e.g. Kevin Gray,Elements of Land Law (London: Butterworths, 1987). especially at page 802 under “Doctrinal Controversy”. The judgement of Judge Jonathan Parker Q.C. is contrasted to a judgement of the Court of Appeal.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clark and Edmunds, seesupra n.6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Seesupra n.7. Quare: can an academic really believe this construction of the world?

  15. Seesupra n.5, at 218.

  16. Note that the judgement was actually given in Chambers.

  17. At page 112.

  18. At page 112.

  19. Seesupra n.6

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lawson,supra n.5, notes that the action was brought under s.30 but makes no further comment on it.

  21. The woman also used s.30 to try and gain a declaration of ownership over (valuable) chattels. See Waites response to this on page 120.

  22. At pages 120–121.

  23. On a related area of law (proprietary estoppel) and on the importance of thinking through the jurisprudence in relation to rights and remedies, see Patricia Ferguson “Constructive Trusts — a cautionary note”,Law Quarterly Review 109 (1993), 114.

    Google Scholar 

  24. “Harassment and the Law of Torts:Khorasandjian v.Bush”,Feminist Legal Studies 1/2 (1993), 189.

  25. Seesupra n.24, at 190.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kent, UK

    Anne Bottomley

Authors
  1. Anne Bottomley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bottomley, A. Production of a text:Hammond v. Mitchell [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1127. Feminist Legal Stud 2, 83–90 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01117251

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01117251

Keywords

Search

Navigation