header-logo header-logo

04 June 2010
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Supplemental petitions

I just cannot make out when a supplemental divorce petition is and is not appropriate...

I just cannot make out when a supplemental divorce petition is and is not appropriate. Am I right in thinking that it can be used where fresh adultery follows the original petition or there are acts of unreasonable behaviour subsequent to the original petition? Can it be used where two years’ separation has expired only after the original petition was presented and the petitioner wishes to rely on s 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973?

A supplemental petition speaks to matters which arose after the presentation of the original petition and so it is certainly the correct means by which to plead allegations of acts of adultery or unreasonable behaviour which have taken place after proceedings were started.

It also has the advantage of attracting a lower court fee than a fresh petition (unless it is a second petition presented with leave of the court). However, a fresh petition is required where two years’ separation with consent are sought

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

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll