Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:42:57.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Litigation Between Spouses (Regulation) Law, 1969

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Ernst Livneh
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legislation
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 1970 , pp. 457 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pollock, and Maitland, , History of English Law (2nd ed.), vol. II, pp. 405–6.Google Scholar

2 (1961) (I) 15 P.D. 682.

3 Sec. 9 (1) of the original version.

4 (1958) (I) 12 P.D. 565.

5 See also Cohen v. Cohen (1963), (III) 17 P.D. 1829–30; While the wife has no claim in tort for injuries inflicted upon her by her husband, her claim for expenses of medical treatment of those injuries, based on her right of maintenance, is admissible.

6 See (1970) 5 Is.L.R. 268 and 288.

6a See e.g., the series of Sidis cases.

7 In England also the immunity of barristers, only recently confirmed by the House of Lords.

8 The English Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, too, preceded the repeal of the local Crown Actions Ordinance.

9 (1930) 2 K.B. 378.

10 Ibid. at 381.

11 (1948) 2 K.B. 474.

12 (1952) 1 K.B. 154; 1 All E.R. 74.

13 (1962) 2 Q.B. 281; 1 All E.R. 701.

14 Ninth Report (Liability in Tort between Husband and Wife), Cmnd. 1268 (1961), end of para. 3.

15 (1952) 2 Q.B. 281 (esp. 291).

16 (1953) 1 Q.B. 597.

17 (1961) (I) 15 P.D. 682. The argument of the court although very interesting was rather complicated and has lost its actuality, since sec. 18 (a) has now been repealed.

18 (1962) (III) 16 P.D. 1792.

19 Sec. 55 of the original version.

20 In so far as they, are at all possible. See (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 451.