header-logo header-logo

Divorce

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll