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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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