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: Sharbatly v Shagroon [2012] EWCA Civ 1507

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : divorce-sharbatly-v-shagroon-2012-ewca-civ-1507
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 27, 2012, 05:57 AM
Article ID : 101013

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Black LJJ, Hedley J, 21 November 2012)

The husband and wife went through a ceremony in London which purported to be an Islamic marriage ceremony. None of the formalities of the Marriage Acts were complied with. The husband was already married. When the relationship broke down the parties came to a financial agreement and the wife issued an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family proceedings Act 1984 which was adjourned and not to be activated unless the husband fell into breach of the agreement.

The husband pronounced talaq and when a heated dispute arose surrounding the financial agreement the wife sought to activate her application. The judge held that it was the validity of the divorce or annulment which was the crucial issue not the validity of the marriage and, therefore, the wife was entitled to make an application under the 1984 Act. The husband appealed.

The judge had not had the benefit of the judgment in Dukali v Lamrani [2012] EWHC 1748 (Fam) [2012] 2 FLR 1099, as it had only been decided a few days prior to this hearing. The judge had erred and in order for the wife to make an application the foreign divorce had to be based on a marriage validly recognised under English law. That could not be argued in this case and, therefore, the wife could not proceed with her claim.

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