header-logo header-logo

02 October 2014 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Divorce: who’s to blame

heaton_0

A recent appeal court ruling highlights the flaws in a fault-based divorce system, says Ed Heaton

In Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655, the Court of Appeal revisited the issue of when a decree nisi should be set aside. Mrs Price issued a petition for divorce on 14 November 2012, based upon Mr Price’s unreasonable behaviour, specifically his alleged profligacy with money. Mr Price, acting in person, filed an acknowledgement of service, in which he indicated an intention to defend the divorce, but no answer was subsequently received by the court. In the absence of any answer, Mrs Price filed an application for decree nisi on the basis that the divorce was undefended. On 29 January 2013, the court certified that Mrs Price was entitled to a decree and decree nisi was listed for pronouncement on 18 February 2013.

On 14 February 2013, Mr Price applied for the pronouncement to be vacated and for the court’s certificate to be set aside. The pronouncement was adjourned until

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