header-logo header-logo

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

Divorce service abroad

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll