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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll