Appeal against an ancillary relief order

Hallett, Black LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
[2013] EWCA Civ 774
Bailii
England and Wales

Family

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512196

H appealed against an order made under the 1869 Act as respects arrears under a maintenance order.

McFarlane, Gloster LJJ, Blake J
[2015] EWCA Civ 714
Bailii
Debtors Act 1869 5, Administration of Justice Act l960 13
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Prest v Prest and Others CA 16-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
See Also – Prest v Prest FD 28-Jul-2014
W sought H’s committal to prison for failing to pay sums due under the provisions an Order for the payment of periodical payments to the wife for her own benefit and for the benefit of the children of the parties, so accordingly maintenance orders. . .
Cited – Prest v Prest FD 29-Jul-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.549776

Application for a declaration of marital status – customary marriage ceremony in Nigeria

Peter Jackson J
[2015] EWFC 28
Bailii
Family Law Act 1986 55(1)(a)
England and Wales

Family

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.549912

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)
Bailii
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 8, Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 1(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sheldon 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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.
Cited – Sisojeva 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.

Family

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.598967

The court described the 1969 and 1970 Acts as ‘a reforming statute designed to facilitate the granting of ancillary relief in cases where marriages have been dissolved . . We regard the provisions of sections 2,3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1970 as designed to accord to the courts the widest possible powers in readjusting the financial position of the parties and to afford the courts the necessary machinery to that end . .’ Relevant misconduct so as to affect an ancillary relief order should be confined to those cases where the conduct was ‘obvious and gross’.
Lord Denning MR said that the phrase ‘family assets’: ‘ refers to those things which are acquired by one or other or both of the parties, with the intention that there should be continuing provision for them and their children during their joint lives, and used for the benefit of the family as a whole.’

Lord Denning MR, Phillimore, Roskill LJJ
[1973] Fam 72, [1973] EWCA Civ 10, [1973] Fam 72, [1973] 2 WLR 366
Bailii, FLW
Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, Divorce Reform Act 1969
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone-Stallard FD 1974
Section 1(2)(b) is expressed in very simple language, and ‘is . . quite easy for a layman to understand’. The court considered the necessary test for whether unreasonable behaviour had reached a point such as to allow a decree of divorce.
Dunn . .
Appeal from – Wachtel v Wachtel FD 3-Oct-1972
Mr. Justice Ormrod ordered the husband to pay to his wife (i) a lump sum of pounds 10,000, or half the value of the former matrimonial home in Norwood, South London, whichever be the less: (ii) a periodical payment of pounds 1,500 per annum, less . .

Cited by:
Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
Cited – Robinson v Robinson (Practice Note) CA 2-Jan-1982
The husband was a serving soldier who had had various postings abroad. The wife returned home, where she discovered that she was pregnant. He followed her home, but she left him, and applied for maintenance. The justices found that she had deserted . .
Cited – O’Neill v O’Neill CA 1975
The court considered the level of unreasonable behaviour necessary to found a decree of divorce.
Cairns LJ said: ‘The right test is, in my opinion, accurately stated in Rayden on Divorce . . ‘The words ‘reasonably be expected’ prima facie . .
Cited – Kyte v Kyte CA 22-Jul-1987
The parties disputed an ancillary relief claim on their divorce. The husband had been suicidally depressed. The wife had committed adultery over a long time and also assisted her husband’s failed suicide. The husband now sought to rely upon her . .
Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA 29-Jul-2005
The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness . .
Cited – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
Fairness on Division of Family Capital
The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital.
Held: The 1973 Act . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.198593

Renewed application for permission to appeal and for an extension of time for bringing an appeal. Action to recover gifts made on a marriage, and against order for payment of a dowry. A muslim religious ceremony had taken place but no civil ceremony. The marriage was not consummated, and a nikah decree of divorce pronounced only shortly after.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused. The arrangements were by way of an enforceable contract. Under Sharia law, the gifts and arrangements were absolute and not returnable or deductible. The judge had also clearly preferred the evidence of the respondents.

Mummery LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1205
Bailii
England and Wales

Family

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.380342

The parties who had undertaken fertility treatment leading to the birth of the child, but where the clinic had failed to carry out the necessary admministrative procedures sought ratification of their status as the legal parents.

Sir James Munby P FD
[2016] EWHC 1329 (Fam)
Bailii, Judiciary
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Re J FD 8-Jun-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.565535

The couple had two children aged 10 and 6 and the question was whether the wife should have a house which cost pounds 210,000, leaving the husband without enough to buy a property of his own, or a house costing pounds 135,000, leaving the husband pounds 75,000 to buy a property of his own.
Held: When apportioning property where children in family, both parents are to be provided with a home if at all possible: ‘In all these cases it is one of the paramount considerations, in applying the section 25 criteria, to endeavour to stretch what is available to cover the need of each for a home, particularly where there are young children involved. Obviously the primary carer needs whatever is available to make the main home for the children, but it is of importance, albeit it is of lesser importance, that the other parent should have a home of his own where the children can enjoy their contact time with him. Of course there are cases where there is not enough to provide a home for either. Of course there are cases where there is only enough to provide one. But in any case where there is, by stretch and a degree of risk-taking, the possibility of a division to enable both to rehouse themselves, that is an exceptionally important consideration and one which will almost invariably have a decisive impact on outcome.’

Thorpe LJ
Times 15-Oct-1997, [1998] 1 FLR 53
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.83258

An extended civil restraint order had been made against the respondent in proceedings in the Court of Protection.

Munby P FD J
[2016] EWHC 2961 (Fam)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Family

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.571754

H and W separated and in 1976, without any pressure H and at the instigation of W, signed a deed of separation negotiated through solicitors. H agreed to purchase a house for W, to confer on her capital benefits worth approximately andpound;100,000, to pay her andpound;16,000 a year and to make periodical payments for the children of the marriage. W agreed that if she obtained a divorce she would not seek a lump sum or property transfer orders. H did as agreed in the separation deed but, in 1978, W petitioned for divorce and applied for ancillary relief, including a lump sum payment.
Held: No good reason had been shown not to hold the wife to her agreement. The court set out the extent to which a contractual agreement for a clean break provision on a divorce is to be reflected in the subsequent exercise of judicial discretion. There is a proper public interest in the court overseeing arrangements made in the throes of marital breakdown when emotional pressures on the parties are high and their judgment clouded.
Ormrod LJ discussed the weight to be given to the separation agreement: ‘To decide what weight should be given, in order to reach a just result, to a prior agreement not to claim a lump sum, regard must be had to the conduct of both parties, leading up to the prior agreement, and to their subsequent conduct, in consequence of it. It is not necessary in this connection to think in formal legal terms, such as misrepresentation or estoppel; all the circumstances as they affect each of two human beings must be considered in the complex relationship of marriage. So, the circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement are relevant. Undue pressure by one side, exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unreasonable advantage, inadequate knowledge, possibly bad legal advice, an important change of circumstances, unforeseen or overlooked at the time of making the agreement, are all relevant to the question of justice between the parties. Important too is the general proposition that formal agreements, properly and fairly arrived at with competent legal advice, should not be displaced unless there are good and substantial grounds for concluding that an injustice will be done by holding the parties to the terms of their agreement. There may well be other considerations which affect the justice of this case; the above list is not intended to be an exclusive catalogue.
I agree with Sir Gordon Willmer in Wright v Wright [1970] 1WLR 1219, 1224, that the existence of an agreement, ‘at least makes it necessary for the wife, if she is to justify an award of maintenance, to offer prima facie proof that there have been unforeseen circumstances, in the true sense, which make it impossible for her to work or otherwise maintain herself.’ Adapting that statement to the present case, it means that the wife here must offer prima facie evidence of material facts which show that justice requires that she should be relieved from the effects of her covenant in clause 8 of the deed of separation, and awarded further capital provision.’
Oliver LJ said: ‘in a consideration of what is just to be done in the exercise of the court’s powers under the Act of 1973 in the light of the conduct of the parties, the court must, I think, start from the position that a solemn and freely negotiated bargain by which a party defines her own requirements ought to be adhered to unless some clear and compelling reason, such as, for instance, a drastic change of circumstances, is shown to the contrary.’

Ormrod and Oliver LJJ
[1980] 1 WLR 1410, [1980] 3 All ER 887, [1980] EWCA Civ 2, [1980] 2 FLR 19
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Brockwell v Brockwell CA 5-Nov-1975
Ormrod LJ said: ‘But it must be a matter entirely for the judge to look at all the facts and the financial situation of each party and taking into account the fact that they made this agreement which to my mind is a very important piece of conduct . .
Cited – Wright v Wright 1970
In the course of a settlement of divorce proceedings, a wife agreed to withdraw her claim for maintenance. She sought to re-open it.
Held: the principle of Hyman v. Hyman applied, notwithstanding that the agreement between the parties had been . .

Cited by:
Cited – A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement) FD 17-Jan-2005
The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge . .
Cited – Xydhias v Xydhias CA 21-Dec-1998
The principles of contract law are of little use when looking at the course of negotiations in divorce ancillary proceedings. In the case of a dispute the court must use its own discretion to determine whether agreement had been reached. Thorpe LJ . .
Cited – Morgan v Hill CA 28-Nov-2006
The father appealed an award of periodical payments to a former partner. She had a child by an earlier relationship. The father was immensely rich and during the relationship made financial provision for the child by the earlier relationship also. . .
Cited – North v North CA 25-Jul-2007
The husband appealed a consent order for payment of pounds 202,000 to commute a varied nominal maintenance order. The original order had been made many years before. In the meantime, the former husband had grown wealthy, and she had suffered . .
Cited – Sutton v Sutton 1984
The husband and his wife agreed that in consideration, inter alia, of the wife consenting to the husband divorcing her on the ground of two years’ separation and consent, he would transfer the matrimonial home to her, and she would take over . .
Cited – Soulsbury v Soulsbury CA 10-Oct-2007
The claimant was the first wife of the deceased. She said that the deceased had promised her a substantial cash sum in his will in return for not pursuing him for arrears of maintenance. The will made no such provision, and she sought payment from . .
Cited – Haines v Hill and Another CA 5-Dec-2007
On the divorce, the husband was ordered to transfer his share in the house to the wife. On his bankruptcy shortly after, the order was confirmed. After the wife sold the property at a profit, the trustee in bankruptcy applied to set the transfer . .
Cited – Williams v Thompson Leatherdale (A Firm) and Another QBD 10-Nov-2008
The claimant sought damages from her legal advisers. They had allowed her to settle an ancillary relief application knowing that the case of White v White had been referred to the House of lords, and the settlement proved to have been on . .
Cited – Radmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Cited – Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .
Cited – S v S FD 14-Jan-2014
The court was asked to approve a settlement reached under the IFLA arbitration scheme.
Held: The order was approved, but the court took the opportunity to give guidance. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.224380

The petitioner sought a divorce alleging cruelty. A decree had been granted by the judge and the husband now appealed saying that the acts alleged fell short of cruelty.
Held: ‘The finding that the husband had been guilty of acts of violence towards his wife on four occasions in the year 1952 is ample to warrant the granting of a Decree on the ground of cruelty unless there be something to show that, in all the circumstances, a Decree ought not to have been granted either because the acts were not serious acts, or for some other reason. Acts of violence by a husband towards his wife such as were found in this case must be regarded seriously. There may be some excuse in some cases of tempers up when the man loses control of himself, but it in difficult to see that there can be any excuse for the acts which, on the Commissioner’s finding, were committed by the husband against the wife in this case, and those acts of violence followed a course of conduct which showed an unpleasant steak somewhere if, an I think it was, the evidence of the wife was believed.’

Singleton, Hodson, Moris LJJ
[1955] EWCA Civ 2, [1955] 2 WLR 817, [1955] P 153, [1955] 2 All ER 51
Bailii
England and Wales

Family

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.262838

Fairness is the test for choice of forum for staying divorce proceedings. As to prenuptial agreements, Wilson J suggested that there might come a case: ‘where the circumstances surrounding the prenuptial agreement and the provision therein contained might, when viewed in the context of the other circumstances of the case, prove influential or even crucial. Where other jurisdictions, both in the United States and in the European Community, have been persuaded that there are cases where justice can only be served by confining parties to their rights under prenuptial agreements, we should be cautious about too categorically asserting the contrary. I can find nothing in section 25 to compel a conclusion, so much at odds with personal freedoms to make arrangements for ourselves, that escape from solemn bargains, carefully struck by informed adults, is readily available here.’
Wilson J said: ‘I am aware of a growing belief that, in the despatch of a claim for ancillary relief in this jurisdiction, no significant weight will be afforded to a prenuptial agreement, whatever the circumstances. I would like to sound a cautionary note in that respect. No one could have more profound respect than I for the observations of Thorpe L.J. In F. v. F. (Ancillary Relief: Substantial Assets) [1995] 2 FLR 45, 66 he said:
‘In this jurisdiction [prenuptial agreements] must be of very limited significance. The rights and responsibilities of those whose financial affairs are regulated by statute cannot be much influenced by contractual terms which were devised for the control and limitation of standards that are intended to be of universal application throughout our society.’
There is a danger that these wide words might be taken out of context. There is no doubt that, where the English court proceeds to determine an application for ancillary relief, section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 precludes any choice of foreign law, however vividly the circumstances of the case might protest its relevance. So the application is of English law and under section 25(1) regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case. In F. v. F. itself, the result of a strict application of the effect of the prenuptial agreements would have been, as the judge said, ‘ridiculous.’ In those circumstances they inevitably constituted circumstances of negligible significance. But there will come a case-were I to refuse a stay, might this be it?-where the circumstances surrounding the prenuptial agreement and the provision therein contained might, when viewed in the context of the other circumstances of the case, prove influential or even crucial. Where other jurisdictions, both in the United States and in the European Community, have been persuaded that there are cases where justice can only be served by confining parties to their rights under prenuptial agreements, we should be cautious about too categorically asserting the contrary. I can find nothing in section 25 to compel a conclusion, so much at odds with personal freedoms to make arrangements for ourselves, that escape from solemn bargains, carefully struck by informed adults, is readily available here. It all depends. The matter must be left open and on the footing that, were she to be enabled to claim ancillary relief in England, the wife might secure an award of substantial further provision. In what follows my duty is to appraise the relevance of the prenuptial agreement to the determination not of the wife’s potential application for ancillary relief but of the entirely different issue as to forum.’

Wilson J
Times 16-Apr-1997, Times 27-Mar-1997, [1997] 1 WLR 1200
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Radmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Cited – Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.88958

W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be interpreted by reference not to his behaviour, but rather to the effect upon her.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The point upon which the appeal had been permitted was novel, and now withdrawn by the petitioner.
Lord Wilson said: ”Unreasonable behaviour’ has always been the family lawyer’s shorthand description for the content of the subsection. But it is wrong. The subsection requires not that the behaviour should have been unreasonable but that the expectation of continued life together should be unreasonable. ‘
Section 1 of the 1973 Act does not require the behaviour under the subsection to have caused the breakdown of the marriage.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 41, [2018] 3 WLR 634, [2018] 4 All ER 721, [2018] 2 FCR 796, [2018] WLR(D) 485, [2018] 2 FLR 1067, [2018] AC 899, UKSC 2017/0077, SC 2018 May 17 pm Video
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 May 17 am Video
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 1(2)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Cited – Pheasant v Pheasant FD 1972
H petitioned for divorce pursuant to section 2(1)(b) of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which came into force on 1 January 1971. The husband’s case was that the wife had been unable to give him the demonstrative affection which he needed.
Held: . .
Cited – Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone-Stallard FD 1974
Section 1(2)(b) is expressed in very simple language, and ‘is . . quite easy for a layman to understand’. The court considered the necessary test for whether unreasonable behaviour had reached a point such as to allow a decree of divorce.
Dunn . .
Cited – Thurlow v Thurlow FD 1976
A husband’s petition under the subsection was based on the wife’s failure to contribute to the running of the home and on her increasingly erratic behaviour, both of which were the result of a severe neurological condition. Rees J noted that, before . .
Cited – Balraj v Balraj CA 1980
The husband’s petition was based on section 1(2)(e) of the 1973 Act, namely that he and the wife had lived apart for at least five years. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s rejection of the wife’s opposition to the grant of a decree, which was . .
Cited – Stevens v Stevens FD 1979
Sheldon J considered whether the divorce petitioner had established that she should not be expected to continue to live with her husband. An earlier behaviour petition by her had been rejected as making insufficient allegations against H.
Unsustainable – Ash v Ash FD 2-Feb-1972
The court considered the standard of behaviour which would support an allegation that a petitioner spouse should not reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.
Held: Tthe court will have regard to the particular petitioner and the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Cited – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
Fairness on Division of Family Capital
The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital.
Held: The 1973 Act . .
Unsustainable – Priday v Priday FD 1970
Cumming-Bruce J dismissed a husband’s petition for divorce on the ground of the wife’s cruelty under section 1(1)(a)(iii) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. But, in recounting the history of the marriage, the judge also commented at p 557 on the . .
Cited – Miller Smith v Miller Smith CA 2-Dec-2009
The married couple owned a property as tenants in common. The husband had moved out and, anticipating divorce proceedings, sought an order for the sale of the house citing his inability to sustain the very considerable mortgage payments. The wife . .
Cited – Jamieson v Jamieson HL 1952
The house discussed the test for relevancy of a pursuer’s averments.
Held: A case should only be dismissed on grounds of relevancy and specification if it would necessarily fail at proof.
The House reversed the decision of the Court of . .
Cited – Miller Smith v Miller Smith CA 2-Dec-2009
The married couple owned a property as tenants in common. The husband had moved out and, anticipating divorce proceedings, sought an order for the sale of the house citing his inability to sustain the very considerable mortgage payments. The wife . .
Cited – Katz v Katz 1972
Misuse of the phrase ‘unreasonable behaviour’ . .
Cited – Bannister v Bannister CA 1980
The Court allowed a wife’s appeal against the dismissal of her petition for divorce, Ormrod LJ observed: ‘The learned judge, I am afraid, fell into the linguistic trap which is waiting for all of us when we speak of ‘unreasonable behaviour’ in . .
Cited – Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council EAT 21-May-2015
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
RACE DISCRIMINATION
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
HARASSMENT
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
The Claimant resigned. In a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Akhter and Another CA 14-Feb-2020
Islamic Nikah Ceremony did not create a marriage
The parties had undertaken, in 1998, an Islamic marriage ceremony, a Nikah. They both knew at the time that to be effective in UK law, there would need to be a civil ceremony, and intended but did not achieve one. The parties having settled their . .
Cited – Yorston and Others, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions) FC 10-Sep-2021
Petitions with Identical Particulars Dismissed
28 divorce petitions had particulars including the exact same form of words for the allegations. The court could not accept that the behaviour had been identical and concluded that the petitions were improper.
Held: The petitions were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.620138

Sheldon J considered whether the divorce petitioner had established that she should not be expected to continue to live with her husband. An earlier behaviour petition by her had been rejected as making insufficient allegations against H.
Held: Sheldon J said: ‘the wife would be entitled to a decree in the present suit if she could establish (a) that their marriage remained irretrievably broken down . . and (b) that since March 16, 1976, he has behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. In my judgment, moreover, it is not necessary for her to establish . . that the husband’s behaviour, of which she now complains, was in any way responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.
On the other hand, of course, the facts that the marriage had clearly broken down and, a fortiori, that the breakdown was due to the fault of the wife are or may be matters in determining whether the husband’s behaviour since has been unreasonable in this context. The court must have regard to the whole history of the matrimonial relationship.
Sheldon J
[1979] 1 WLR 885
England and Wales
Citing:
Adopted – Welfare v Welfare FD 12-Oct-1977
Bush J heard a defended divorce petion sand said: ‘Conduct of a respondent could not be looked at in isolation but had to be viewed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, including the degree of provocation.’ He continued to adopt the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Cited – Owens v Owens SC 25-Jul-2018
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.581084

By an antenuptial marriage-contract executed in 1848 the wife bound herself to convey to the trustees the whole funds and estate, real and personal, which she then had or might thereafter ‘conquest and acquire by purchase, succession, or otherwise.’ The trustees were directed to pay the annual income of the trust estate to the wife during her life for her separate use, exclusive of the jus mariti. Held that the clause of conquest did not extend to estate which consisted of, or was purchased with, savings made by the wife from her separate income during the subsistence of the marriage.
Lord Macnaghten in the Chair, Lord Davey, Lord Robertson, and Lord Lindley
[1905] UKHL 553, 42 SLR 553
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.621176

The Court was asked: ‘In circumstances in which at the time of a divorce a spouse, say a wife, is awarded capital which enables her to purchase a home but later she exhausts the capital by entry into a series of unwise transactions and so develops a need to pay rent, is the court entitled to decline to increase the order for the husband to make periodical payments to her so as to fund payment of all (or perhaps even any) of her rent even if he could afford to do so?’ On their divorce, the parties agreed a consent order involving capital and maintenance payments. They anticipated that the capital would buy a house, but W also obtained a mortgage, and now sought an increase in the maintenance payments to allow her to make the payments. The judge refused her application saying that it was a choice she had made. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, and H appealed now in turn.
Held: The Court of Appeal had erred. The judge had given proper reasons, and had made a decision properly within his discretion.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2018] UKSC 38, UKSC 2017/0040
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018Jun 06 am Video, SC 2018 May 08 pm Video
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 31(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – M v M CA 1-Feb-2017
. .
Cited – Pearce v Pearce CA 28-Jul-2003
The financial claims on divorce had been settled by a compromise recorded in a court order. The order included periodical payments to the former wife. After she suffered financial losses, she sought an increase, and the former husband sought an . .
Cited – North v North CA 25-Jul-2007
The husband appealed a consent order for payment of pounds 202,000 to commute a varied nominal maintenance order. The original order had been made many years before. In the meantime, the former husband had grown wealthy, and she had suffered . .
Cited – Yates v Yates CA 28-Mar-2012
Under a consent order the wife had received a substantial lump sum on the basis that she would use half of it in discharging a mortgage on her home. In the event she had repaid only part of the mortgage debt and had invested in a non-income-bearing . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.620137

Sir Ernest Ryder SPT
[2017] EWCA Civ 129
Bailii
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 31(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
At CA – Mills v Mills SC 18-Jul-2018
The Court was asked: ‘In circumstances in which at the time of a divorce a spouse, say a wife, is awarded capital which enables her to purchase a home but later she exhausts the capital by entry into a series of unwise transactions and so develops a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.620142

Feme de person banish poet aver action.
[1675] EngR 45, (1675) 1 Rolle 400, (1675) 81 ER 564 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.404170

References: [2014] EWHC 4845 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Moylan J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559003

References: [2014] EWHC 4861 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559002

References: [2016] EWHC 1397 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 14 February 2019
Ref: 570766

References: [2017] EWFC B40
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15-Aug-17
Ref: 591163

References: Times 02-Dec-1976
Ratio: Ordinary contractual considerations apply to the interpretation of a settlement of an ancillary relief application.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Xydhias v Xydhias CA (Times 13-Jan-99, Gazette 10-Feb-99, Gazette 27-Jan-99, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1966, [1999] 2 All ER 386, [1999] 1 FLR 683)
  The principles of contract law are of little use when looking at the course of negotiations in divorce ancillary proceedings. In the case of a dispute the court must use its own discretion to determine whether agreement had been reached. Thorpe LJ . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13-Nov-16
Ref: 242422

References: [2016] EWHC 2634 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mostyn J
Ratio: 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 refused. W sent the papers to the Foreign Process Section for service under the EU Service Regulation (No 1393/2007) on 19 January 2016. Unfortunately, she gave the husband’s address as No 214 Kurfurstendamm Berlin. That is his office address. His home address is No 215. Because the wife did not give the name of his business and there are a number of units in No 214, the papers were returned marked ‘address unknown’ . . This minor error, if indeed it was an error, is not one that can be said to demonstrate that the wife had failed to take steps required of her within the terms of Art 16. And in any event she did perfectly serve the husband on 27 February 2016, four months and a day after the issue of the petition.
Statutes: Brussels II Regulation (No. 1347/2000)
This case cites:

• Cited – Chai v Peng FD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam))
  The court was severely critical of the practice in divorce proceedings of uissuing a petition for divorce but then not serving it for some time. Holman J referred to a colourful metaphor deployed by leading counsel for the husband: ‘To file [a . .
• Cited – R v R (Divorce: Stay Of Proceedings) FD ([1994] 2 FLR 1036)
  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 . .
• Cited – Dresser UK v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA ([1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502)
  In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
• Cited – R v R (Divorce: Stay Of Proceedings) FD ([1994] 2 FLR 1036)
  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 . .
• Cited – Tavoulareas v Tsavliris CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 48, Bailii, [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 445)
  The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that . .
• Cited – UBS Ag, London Branch and Another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig Gmbh ComC (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2566 (Comm), [2012] Bus LR D15, [2010] 2 CLC 499)
  The defendant asked the court to decline jurisdiction.
  Held: Gloster J stated: ‘In the present case the relevant requirement is to be found in CPR 7.5. That provides that a claim form which is to be served within the jurisdiction must be . .
• Cited – Weiner v Weiner FD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 1843 (Fam))
  The parties, both Swedish nationals had been habitually resident in England for fifteen years. They had properties in both countries. They disputed the proper forum to resolve their divorce.
  Held: Referring to the Regulation, Holman J said: . .
• Cited – In Re I (A Child) SC (Bailii, [2009] UKSC 10, SC, SC Summ, UKSC 2009/0075, [2010] 1 All ER 445, [2009] 3 WLR 1299, [2010] 1 FCR 200)
  The child had been born in Britain to British citizen parents from Pakistan and India. There had been care proceedings, but later and with the court’s consent the father took him to Pakistan undertaking to return him, but then failed to do so. . .
• Cited – Benatti v WPP Holdings Italy Srl and others CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 263, Times 16-Apr-07)
  The parties had each begun proceedings in different jurisdictions within the European Union. They disputed which court was first seised.
  Held: The issue was decided by looking at when, in each case, the document instituting the proceedings was . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 03-Nov-16
Ref: 570773

References: [2015] EWFC 54
Links: Bailii
Coram: MacDonald J
Ratio: Application for care order. The primary issue with respect to that application is whether bruising seen on A in November 2014 was accidental in nature or inflicted and, if inflicted, by whom.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21-Oct-16
Ref: 549929

References: [2016] EWFC 35
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 15-Jul-16
Ref: 566225

References: [2016] EWFC 27
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 15-Jul-16
Ref: 566227

References: [2015] EWFC B63
Links: Bailii
Coram: Wildblood QC HHJ
Ratio:Mrs M’s application for financial orders following the parties’ separation in 2008 after a long marriage from which there are no dependant minor children.

Last Update: 02-Jul-16
Ref: 548015

References: [2015] EWFC B45
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 05-Jun-16
Ref: 546555

References: [2015] EWFC B59
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 15-May-16
Ref: 547265

References: [2016] EWFC B18
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 08-May-16
Ref: 563134

References: [2016] EWFC 23
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-May-16
Ref: 563120

References: [2014] EWFC 775
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 08-Apr-16
Ref: 561193

References: [2015] EWFC 92
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 08-Apr-16
Ref: 561184

References: [2014] EWFC 51
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561190

References: [2014] EWFC 19
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561187

References: [2016] EWFC 8
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561179

References: [2016] EWHC 504 (Fam)
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561537

References: [2016] EWFC 5
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561178

References: [2016] EWFC 3
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561176

References: [2016] EWFC 1
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 07-Apr-16
Ref: 561175

References: [2014] EWFC 54
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 06-Apr-16
Ref: 561192

References: [2016] EWFC 16
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 03-Apr-16
Ref: 561181

References: [2016] EWFC 12
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561180

References: [2014] EWFC 53
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561191

References: [2014] EWFC 52
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561195

References: [2015] EWFC 6
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561183

References: [2016] EWFC 4
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561177

References: [2014] EWFC 55
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561185

References: [2015] EWFC 60
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561173

References: [2016] EWFC 6
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561174

References: [2014] EWFC 50
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561189

References: [2014] EWFC 46
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561186

References: [2014] EWFC 57
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 28-Mar-16
Ref: 561188

References: [2016] EWFC B4
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 21-Mar-16
Ref: 560627

References: [2016] EWFC B5
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 15-Mar-16 Ref: 560625

References: [2016] EWFC B3
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 14-Mar-16 Ref: 560624

References: [2016] EWFC B8
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 14-Mar-16 Ref: 560628

References: [2016] EWFC B6
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 13-Mar-16 Ref: 560623

References: [2016] EWFC B7
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 13-Mar-16 Ref: 560626

References: [1861] EngR 324, (1861) 2 Sw & Tr 246, (1861) 164 ER 989
Links: Commonlii
Petition for Dissolution of marriage – petition for permanent alimony after decree nisi
Last Update: 20-Nov-15 Ref: 284085

References: [2015] EWFC B126
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 06-Nov-15 Ref: 552140

References: [2015] EWFC B169
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 05-Nov-15 Ref: 553946

References: [2015] EWFC B97
Links: Bailii
Coram: Laura Harris HHJ
Judgment as to fact finding hearing to determine the causation and, if I determine all or any of the injuries to A were deliberated inflicted, the identity of the perpetrator of those injuries to A
Last Update: 17-Oct-15 Ref: 552130

References: [2015] EWFC 64
Links: Bailii
Coram: Moor J
Last Update: 05-Oct-15 Ref: 550936

References: [2015] EWFC 48
Links: Bailii

References: [2014] EWFC B145
Links: Bailii
Coram: Clifford Bellamy HHJ
Application for care orders.