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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

In the Matter of 180 Irregular Divorces; Rapisarda v Colladon (No. 2) [2014] EWFC 35

Sep 29, 2018, 22:43 PM
180 irregular divorces, family court,
Slug : in-the-matter-of-180-irregular-divorces-rapisarda-v-colladon-no-2-2014-ewfc-35
Meta Title : In the Matter of 180 Irregular Divorces; Rapisarda v Colladon (No. 2) [2014] EWFC 35
Meta Keywords : 180 irregular divorces, family court,
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 30, 2014, 08:23 AM
Article ID : 116788
(Family Division, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, 30 September 2014)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2015] 1 FLR 597]

 Divorce – Fraud – Assertion of habitual residence – Address given was a mail box – Whether the petitions, decrees nisi and absolute could be set aside

 The President set aside 180 petitions for divorce and in some cases decrees nisi and absolute on the basis of fraud.

 Please see attached file below for the full judgment.

 The Queen’s Proctor applied for the dismissal of 180 divorce petitions, issued in 137 courts throughout England and Wales and also in many cases to set aside decrees of divorce obtained in consequence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale.

 In each case the Italian petitioner or respondent asserted that they were habitually resident in England and Wales for the purposes of Brussels II Revised. In 179 of the cases an address in Maidenhead was given for the petitioner or respondent. The address for the other party was in Italy, and in one case Germany. Aside from one case there was no reason to believe that either party had ever resided in England and Wales. The address given was a mail box in a commercial premises.

 In each of the cases the President was satisfied that the assertion that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition was founded on a lie that one of the parties was habitually resident here. The court was induced by fraud to accept that it had jurisdiction. In those cases where a petition had been issued but the case had progressed no further, the petitions were dismissed pursuant to FPR 7.20(2)(b). On the authority of Callaghan v Hanson-Fox (Andrew) [1992] Fam 1 and Moynihan v Moynihan (No 2) [1997] 1 FLR 59 the findings established fraud in those cases where decree nisi and absolute had been granted rendering them void.

 The President noted that the fact that a petition could be issued in any divorce court in England and Wales irrespective of the address of the petitioner or respondent enabled to fraud to continue for so long without being detected. The handling of divorce petitions was soon to be centralised with a limited number of locations. Within a year there would be fewer than 20 places where a divorce petition could be issued.
 
 

  Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWFC 35
 Case No: AL11D00099  and 179 other petitions

 THE FAMILY COURT (In Open Court)
 Royal Courts of Justice
 Strand
 London
 WC2A 2LL

 30 September 2014

 
 
 B e f o r e :

 SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

 In the matter of 180 Irregular Divorces

 ____________________

 Between:

 AGATA RAPISARDA
 Petitioner

 - and -

 IVAN COLLADON
 Respondent

 ____________________


 Mr Simon P G Murray and Mr Thomas Collins (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Queen's Proctor
 Ms Tina Villarosa (instructed under the Direct Public Access scheme) for the parties in AL11D00099 (Rapisarda v Colladon)

 Hearing dates: 9-10 April 2014
 Further submissions lodged 4 June 2014

 ____________________

 

 JUDGMENT 


 In the Matter of 180 Irregular Divorces; Rapisarda v Colladon (No. 2) [2014] EWFC 35 
Categories :
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from