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

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Ramnarine v Ramnarine [2013] UKPC 27

Sep 29, 2018, 21:12 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-ramnarine-v-ramnarine-2013-ukpc-27
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 15, 2013, 02:55 AM
Article ID : 103339

(Privy Council, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Wilson of Culworth, 31 July 2013)

The husband and wife were born in Trinidad although the wife also had British nationality. They married in London and lived during the marriage in the UK, the USA and Trinidad. After 29 years of marriage the husband petitioned for divorce in Trinidad and the wife applied for financial remedy. Exceptionally, there was a 4-year delay between the hearing and judgment being given. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and the wife appealed to the Privy Council by which time a delay of 16 years had elapsed since the initial hearing.

The delay of 4 years was entirely unacceptable. At its centre, a determination of a claim for financial relief, was the need for an analysis of present circumstances, financial and otherwise, and for the crafting of the fairest future financial arrangements for the parties on foot of it. Apart from the burden cast by the delay upon the litigants, the orders then ultimately made could well have become unrealistic in the interim. The Board was not asked to determine whether delay in the delivery of the judgment, entirely unexplained, was unconstitutional but on any view it was an affront to family justice.

The Board found that, gross though was the judge's delay in its delivery, there had been no significant consequential error in the reasoning of his judgment. It balked at the prospect of a rehearing. The costs of the financial proceedings and the length of their pendency to date were both already out of all proportion to the sums conceivably at stake.

The wife had failed to make out her entitlement to a re-hearing and the appeal was dismissed.

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