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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

DIVORCE: Duhur-Johnson v Duhur Johnson (Attorney-General Intervening)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : duhur-johnson-v-duhur-johnson-attorney-general-intervening
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 3, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87865

(3 May 2005; Jeremy Richardson QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 1042

The Family Law Act 1986, s 51(3) provided that the validity of an overseas divorce could be refused if reasonable steps had not been taken for giving notice of the proceedings to a party to the marriage. The husband had not taken reasonable steps to give notice of the Nigerian divorce proceedings to the wife. He knew that the wife was in London, and although he may not have known precisely where, he had had no problems in contacting her when it suited him to do so. By the husband's failure to inform either his Nigerian lawyers or the Nigerian court about the likelihood of the wife being in England, the Nigerian court had been misled in a very material way. Therefore the validity of the Nigerian divorce would not be recognised by the English court, which would pronounce a decree nisi on the wife's English divorce petition.

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