|
After the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel in the Family Division, Mr Wachtel appealed his case in the Court of Appeal. The case was then heard by Lord Denning MR (then Master of the Rolls), sitting with Phillimore & Roskill LJJ, who are therefore also implicated.
These senior judges did not overturn Ormrod's judgement, and so this important case precedent upheld the decision that 'no-fault' divorce should remain in financial matters. By this point the 'no-fault' principle was being applied to both children's issues and financial issues in divorce, so completing the corruption.
The most glaring corruption is that Denning says "In most cases both parties are to blame- or, as we would prefer to say-both parties have contributed to the breakdown". This blatant and obvious lie by Denning has determined most of his 'logic'. The experiences reported to us are not that 'in most cases both are to blame'. But even if this were true, what has that got to do with the case of the man obviously wronged by an adulterous or deserting wife ? Denning has ensured that such innocent men are stripped of both children and money.
Here is an extract from the All England Law Reports [1973] 1 AER 829 CA which illustrates the corrupt 'logic' :
|
Comment : thank goodness Denning's dead.
