Sir Mark Potter considered the validity of an Egyptian decree obtained in breach of a restraining injunction upon which the court had relied to preserve the status of marriage.
Held: Recognition was refused on the facts.
Sir Mark Potter P (obiter) said: ‘Had I been satisfied, upon a full and thorough examination of the position, that the husband had indeed obtained his Egyptian judgment by dishonestly asserting that he had pronounced a Talaq over the telephone on or about 18 January 2008, I would have had no hesitation in acceding to Mr Howard’s submission. However for reasons already stated I have not felt it right to resolve that question….the terms of section 51(3)(a) are to my mind sufficient and appropriate to cover circumstances such as those which exist in this case and I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion to refuse recognition of the Egyptian judgment pursuant to the terms of that paragraph. That being so, lacking as I am any detailed submissions as to the ambit of the public policy exception provided for in section 51(3)(c) of the 1986 Act, I decline to refuse recognition on that ground also.’
Sir Mark Potter P
[2010] EWHC 460 (Fam), [2010] 3 FCR 174, [2010] Fam Law 583, [2010] 2 FLR 1418, FD08D02126
Bailii
Family Law Act 1986 51
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Golubovich v Golubovich CA 21-May-2010
The court was asked to rule as to the recognition of a foreign (Moscow) decree of divorce obtained in breach of an Hemain injunction. The Russian proceedings had got to a stage requiring H positively to apply to prevent the decree.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, International
Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.415939