header-logo header-logo

One marriage: two petitions

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

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 this

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