The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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)  Fam 1 and Moynihan v Moynihan (No 2)  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:  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
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