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 void and not just voidable, even here parties had remarried. It appeared that a particular person, a former practising barrister might be involved in each case, and the costs issues should be put to him.

Sir James Munby P
[2017] EWHC 2789 (Fam)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 8, Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 1(4)
England and Wales
CitedSheldon v Sheldon (The Queen’s Proctor Intervening) 28-Jan-1865
Practice. – Dismissal of Petition – No Evidence produced -The Queen’s Proctor intervened in a suit for dissolution in which the respondent did not appear, and alleged collusion and the petitioner’s adultery. No evidence being tendered in support of . .
CitedCrowden 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. . .
CitedClutterbuck 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. . .
CitedRapisarda 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.
CitedSisojeva And Others v Latvia ECHR 15-Jan-2007
Grand Chamber – There was insufficient evidence that the questioning by security police in the circumstances: ‘should be regarded as a form of ‘pressure’, ‘intimidation’ or ‘harassment’ which might have induced the applicants to withdraw or modify . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.598967