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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll