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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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