Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES/COSTS: Arshad v Anwar [2012] EWCA Civ 372

Sep 29, 2018, 21:30 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv372
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 27, 2012, 11:25 AM
Article ID : 98425

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Moses and Hughes LJJ; 23 February 2012)

The parties married in Pakistan and set up home in England, where they were habitually resident at all material times. Following the separation two years later the husband pronounced a talaq somewhere in the UK, which he then had registered in Pakistan. The wife issued divorce and ancillary relief proceedings, which prompted the husband to write to the court and the wife's solicitors stating that there had already been a talaq and that the financial application was misconceived. That assertion resulted in the wife's petition being stayed and a subsequent application by her to lift the stay.

The wife applied for leave under the 1984 Act before succeeding in having the stay lifted on the basis that the talaq had been pronounced in the UK and therefore could not be recognised. As a result of that decision the wife applied for permission to withdraw her 1984 application and an order for the husband to pay her costs, but giving the husband less than 7 days' notice. The husband's application for an adjournment was refused, permission to withdraw was given and an order for costs was made against the husband.

The order could not stand due to the lack of notice. The judge rejected the husband's argument that the wife's costs were not recoverable, finding that she was forced into preparing her application by virtue of the husband's stance in the proceedings but she should not have issued the proceedings so swiftly and therefore the costs in relation to launching the application were not recoverable. Additionally, the question of duplication between the costs of the Part III application and the application to lift the stay would need to be assessed. The appeal was allowed and the order substituted with an order that the wife's costs be assessed on that basis.

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