header-logo header-logo

19 May 2011
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

One marriage: two petitions

Is there an obligation on the part of a divorce petition respondent who seeks a cross-decree...

Is there an obligation on the part of a divorce petition respondent who seeks a cross-decree to file an answer to the lead petition as well as their own petition in the same case?

No, but the respondent may well be advised that it is tactically prudent for them to do both. However, even if the parties petition in the same case and neither files an answer, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) rule 71(3)(b) makes it defended and a case management conference has to be directed (rule 7.20(4)).

No doubt the object of these provisions is to enable the court to properly control the proceedings and prevent one of the parties rushing to secure an undefended decree on their petition without linkage to the other petition. We take the view that if on the case management conference the parties are agreed that each of them should be entitled to a decree and the court is satisfied that

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