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:

AppliedClutterbuck 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. . .
EndorsedRapisarda 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.
CitedGrasso 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.537228