Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

DIVORCE/ JURISDICTION: W v W (Divorce Proceedings) [2010] EWHC 1843 (fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:30 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC1843
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 13, 2010, 06:30 AM
Article ID : 91291

(Family Division; Holman J; 15 July 2010)

The couple were Swedish nationals and were habitually resident in England for the last 15 years. The wife lodged the relevant divorce documents with the English court before the husband lodged the relevant divorce documents with the Swedish court. However, when the wife twice tried to serve the husband with the documents, on both occasions it was a Sunday. Although she then served on a weekday, by then the husband had served the Swedish proceedings.  

Editors of Rayden were correct and under current Family Proceeding Rules divorce petitions should not be served on a Sunday. However, there was no sanction provided in the rules.

Held that English court undoubtedly seised first. Service on a Sunday did not null and void service, but done in good faith, it was merely an irregularity. No prejudice or religious offence suggested and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction to set aside proceedings. The international context and jurisdictional issues did not affect this decision. No doubt that the English proceedings were issued first and as matter of fact the English documents were served first, albeit in manner that breached a technical rule.  

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from