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

FINANCIAL PROVISION/JURISDICTION: LK v K (Brussels II Revised: Maintenance Pending Suit) [2006] EWHC 153 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : lk-v-k-brussels-ii-revised-maintenance-pending-suit-2006-ewhc-153-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 10, 2006, 10:46 AM
Article ID : 89223

(Family Division; Singer J; 10 February 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

Divorce proceedings had been started in France and England on the same day. The husband contested the jurisdiction of the English court. The French court considered itself seised second and stayed proceedings until after the English court had ruled on jurisdiction. The husband's French appeal against this decision was pending. The English jurisdiction hearing had been listed, but would not be heard for some weeks. The wife applied in England for maintenance pending suit. The husband opposed this on the basis that his appeal was highly likely to succeed and the matter should be left to the French courts. He also argued that because of the wife's failure to file a certificate of marriage with her divorce petition, the petition was a nullity. It had been confirmed that where marriage certificates were not available with the petition, a practice had developed at the Principal Registry of seeking an undertaking as to the future filing of the marriage certificate rather than obtaining court permission as required by the rules.

The English court was not entitled to predict the outcome of the French appeal, as the husband had requested, and could not proceed on the basis that the husband's appeal was highly likely to, or should, succeed. Once a competent court of another jurisdiction had concluded that it was not first seised, then so long as that order remained in force the courts of both countries should operate on that basis. Given that the French court for the time being considered its proceedings stayed, the English court was bound to consider awarding maintenance pending suit in order to ensure that the wife was not deprived of remedy in either court. The wife's failure to file a certificate of marriage with her petition did not render the petition invalid, being merely a minor procedural irregularity. This was an exceptional case, given the wife's need to meet ongoing costs liabilities if she were to be able to bring her case before the court. The balance of unfairness would fall more heavily on the wife than on the husband if the order were declined.

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