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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

M v P [2019] EWFC 14

Mar 28, 2019, 11:36 AM
Marriage and divorce – Validity of decrees – Human and system error – Both parties had remarried – Whether the decrees were void or voidable
The court held that the decrees which were issued in error were voidable but not void.
Slug :
Meta Title : M v P [2019] EWFC 14
Meta Keywords : Marriage and divorce – Validity of decrees – Human and system error – Both parties had remarried – Whether the decrees were void or voidable
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 28, 2019, 00:00 AM
Article ID :

(Family Court, Sir James Munby, sitting as a judge of the High Court, 22 March 2019)

Marriage and divorce – Validity of decrees – Human and system error – Both parties had remarried – Whether the decrees were void or voidable

The court held that the decrees which were issued in error were voidable but not void.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.


Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWFC 14

Case numbers omitted

IN THE FAMILY COURT
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice

(In Open Court)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 22 March 2019

Before :

SIR JAMES MUNBY (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

M
Petitioner

- and -

P
The Queen’s Proctor Intervening
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Simon P G Murray (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Queen’s Proctor
Ms Janet Bazley QC and Ms Katherine Dunseath (instructed by Messrs Duncan Lewis) all acting pro bono for P
M appeared in person

Hearing date: 28 February 2019

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

SIR JAMES MUNBY (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)

This judgment was handed down in open court

WARNING: The Judge has made a reporting restriction order prohibiting the identification of M and of P; failure to comply with this order will be a contempt of court [see paras 114-115 below]

 

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Marriage and Divorce
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from