Crowden v Crowden (The King’s Proctor showing cause): 1906

The normal practice of the Queen’s Proctor is not to adduce evidence in support of the plea on intervening in a divorce petition, and there is no need for him to do so where there is no answer to the plea.
Bargrave Deane J
(1906) 23 TLR 143
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Applied – Clutterbuck v Clutterbuck and Reynolds (Queen’s Proctor showing cause) 1961
    The court considered the proper practice where the Proctor intervened in a divorce petition, but no answer was received from the parties. . .
    [1961] 105 Sol Jo 1012
  • Endorsed – Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces) FC 30-Sep-2014
    The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
    [2014] EWFC 35, [2015] 1 FLR 597
  • Cited – Grasso v Naik (Twenty-One Irregular Divorces) FD 8-Nov-2017
    Deceit in address avoided divorce petitions
    The Queen’s Proctor applied to have set aside as fraudulent 21 petitions for divorce. It was said that false addresses had been used in order to give the court the appearance that it had jurisdiction.
    Held: The decrees obtained by fraud were . .
    [2017] EWHC 2789 (Fam)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.537228