The wife had filed a petition for divorce on 22 April 1993 but did not reveal and serve it until after the husband had filed a petition in Sweden on 9 June 1993. She now sought an order staying the proceedings in Sweden.
Held: The stay was refused.
Ewbank J stated: ‘I have to say that a divorce petition does not stand in the same position as a writ in a civil action; a divorce petition is dealing with the status of parties and is subject to the rules set out in the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977; it ought not to state that a marriage has broken down irretrievably if that is not the instructions of the client; and it ought to be served as soon as practicable after filing. It is not appropriate in the Family Division for petitions to be filed and held in secret and not served until it suits the petitioner.’
Judges:
Ewbank J
Citations:
[1994] 2 FLR 1036
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Cited – Thum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570775
