13 December 2013 / Amy Fox

Issue: 7588 / Categories: Features , Family

printer

mail-detail

Shoud I stay or should I go?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

web_fox

Amy Fox welcomes clarity on the power to stay divorce proceedings in cases involving non-contracting / third states

In 2009, four years after the judgment in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577, HHJ Ian Karsten QC observed: “The time cannot be far off when an English judge will have to decide what the effect of Owusu is upon the power to stay divorce proceedings under the 1973 Act” (The State of International Family Law Issues: A View From London [2009] IFL 35). Four years later, the case of Mittal v Mittal [2013] EWCA Civ 1255, [2013] All ER (D) 200 (Oct) has finally forced such a decision to be made.

Mittal v Mittal

Mittal concerned a husband and wife, both Indian nationals, who were married in India in 2003. In 2004, their only daughter was born in India. They lived together in India until October 2006 when the husband moved to England. In February 2007, the wife and daughter

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

Shoud I stay or should I go?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Issue: 7588 / Categories: Features , Family

web_fox

Amy Fox welcomes clarity on the power to stay divorce proceedings in cases involving non-contracting / third states

In 2009, four years after the judgment in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577, HHJ Ian Karsten QC observed: “The time cannot be far off when an English judge will have to decide what the effect of Owusu is upon the power to stay divorce proceedings under the 1973 Act” (The State of International Family Law Issues: A View From London [2009] IFL 35). Four years later, the case of Mittal v Mittal [2013] EWCA Civ 1255, [2013] All ER (D) 200 (Oct) has finally forced such a decision to be made.

Mittal v Mittal

Mittal concerned a husband and wife, both Indian nationals, who were married in India in 2003. In 2004, their only daughter was born in India. They lived together in India until October 2006 when the husband moved to England. In February 2007, the wife and

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sponsored by

Click to know more

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS

NLJ this week: Reframing family dispute resolution

As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes

NLJ this week: Employment law updates on restraints, representation & tribunal boundaries

A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike

NLJ this week Civil way: Practical procedure lessons & cautionary tales

From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

NLJ this week: Fraud in the digital age

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

NLJ this week: Right outcome, troubling reasoning?

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct?

back-to-top-scroll