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

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