header-logo header-logo

Supplemental petitions

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

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

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