header-logo header-logo

Divorce service abroad

29 November 2013
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

If service of a divorce petition on the respondent abroad is bad...

If service of a divorce petition on the respondent abroad is bad because the exacting requirements of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) have not been complied with but the respondent takes no point and acknowledges service, should the court take any point?

The requirements for service of a petition out of the jurisdiction are generally laid down by the relevant Regulation or Convention (which are therefore reflected in the FPR) or, where none applies, the law of the country in which the petition is to be served: FPR r 6.43(3). In the case of service under Council Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, the effect of Art 19 of the Regulation is that where the respondent has appeared, it is not necessary to establish that service has been effected in accordance with the Regulation; a similar position applies to service under the 1965 Hague Convention on Service, by virtue of Art 15 of the Convention.

Accordingly, unless the acknowledgement itself raises an issue about

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