header-logo header-logo

13 June 2014
Issue: 7610 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Divorce

Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655, [2014] All ER (D) 28 (Jun)

The proceedings concerned an application for divorce by the wife.  Consideration was given to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010).

The husband submitted that the provisions of Rule 4.6 FPR 2010, which set out the circumstances where relief from sanctions might be available, ought to have been taken into account. The wife, while agreeing that the FPR 2010 was relevant, submitted that the judge had not needed to refer to it explicitly, and that his decision had sufficiently taken its provisions into account.

The Court of Appeal held that a judge had to have regard to r 4.6 FPR 2010, but that did not remove the force of the old authorities. The decision to be taken involved an amalgam of procedural rules and authorities. A consideration of an application to have a certificate set aside and for leave to file an answer out of time would therefore require a consideration of all of the circumstances of the case, including those spelled out in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll