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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL PROVISION/CONFLICT OF LAWS: Rhode v Rhode and Pembroke Square Ltd [2007] EWHC 496 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : rhode-v-rhode-and-pembroke-square-ltd-2007-ewhc-496-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 17, 2007, 10:41 AM
Article ID : 87777

(Family Division; Baron J; 17 February 2007)

An application under Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments Act 1982, s 25, for an asset freezing order to assist with French divorce proceedings, following the procedure set out in Rayden para 27.47, had been correctly issued. The proceedings were family proceedings within the meaning of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, as the application was a 'matrimonial cause or matter' within Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, s 32. The procedure set out in Rayden was to be adopted in such cases, which did not need to be issued under Civil Procedure Rules Pt 8. Given that: the husband was neither domiciled nor resident in England; the sum involved was not likely to make a significant difference to the final French award, and, most importantly, the French court had refused to grant the injunction, it was not appropriate for the injunction to be in place.

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