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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

DIVORCE: Leake v Goldsmith [2009] EWHC 988 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : leake-v-goldsmith-2009-ewhc-988-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 14, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87647

(Family Division; Munby J; 8 May 2009)

An application for decree nisi came before the court in unusual and unfortunate circumstances. Following a successful FDR, it had emerged that the district judge had not yet granted decree nisi, having noticed that the marriage certificate was not on the file. The parties asked the FDR judge to deal with the divorce himself, and he agreed. However, the FDR judge then declined to grant a decree on the wife's evidence, because the address given in her oral evidence was not precisely the same as the address given in the petition. The judge therefore gave the wife permission to amend her most recent petition (she had issued two petitions, the second replacing the first), and directed that the case be listed for pronouncement of decree nisi on the following day, the judge being otherwise satisfied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Unfortunately, court listed the wrong petition for pronouncement, that is to say it listed the earlier of the two petitions. This was not spotted and both the decree nisi and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 41 certificate were therefore granted with the wrong petition number; this problem was later identified by the district judge and as soon as it came to his attention the FDR judge alerted the parties to the problem.

There was no scope for amending the order under the slip rule. A consent order would be made (i) to set aside the original orders; (ii) to pronounce a decree nisi on the wife's second petition, as amended; (iii) to grant a new s 41 certificate; and (iv) to abridge the time for decree absolute to 7 days. In the event, because both parties to the marriage were still alive, no major legal issue arose in the case. There had been no need to explore the possible legal implications of the mishap: it was possible that the original decree was valid, but it was also possible that it was not.

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