Earl v Earland Kyle; Earl v Earl: 1926

There had been cross-petitions between H and W, and they had been consolidated by court order.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to order the co-respondent to pay the costs of the wife’s suit since she was not a party to that petition despite the consolidation.


(1926) 96 LJP 23, [1926] 136 LT 383


Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 50


CitedForbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick CA 1901
W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W’s petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.238513