header-logo header-logo

Test for rescinding decree nisi

27 September 2023
Issue: 8042 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce
printer mail-detail
The Court of Appeal has confirmed the approach the court should take to an application to rescind a decree nisi, in a landmark judgment

In Cazalet v Abu-Jalaf [2023] EWCA Civ 1065, the court overturned Mr Justice Mostyn’s dismissal of Olga Cazalet’s application to rescind a decree nisi and decision to grant the decree absolute sought by Walid Abu-Zalaf.

The couple married in June 2012 after signing a prenuptial agreement, which provided for the wife to receive increasing levels of financial provision upon divorce depending on number of years from marriage to separation. The couple separated in August 2013. Decree nisi was pronounced in November 2013 but neither party sought to make the decree absolute. The prenuptial agreement was not implemented as the husband continued to maintain his wife and children.

However, the wife said the couple reconciled from November 2014 until March 2020. The husband denied this, asserting that while the relationship ‘rekindled’ it was not a marital reconciliation. In 2021, the wife applied to rescind the decree nisi, aiming to file a fresh divorce application which would treat the marriage as having lasted eight years. The husband responded by applying for the decree nisi to be made absolute.

The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed a reconciliation had taken place, which altered the duration of marriage and consequent financial provision.

Delivering the main judgment, Lady Justice King said the wife’s application ‘falls comfortably within’ the ground of ‘new event or material change of circumstances’, as set out by Cobb J in NP v TP (Divorce) [2022[EWFC 78.

King LJ held Mostyn J applied the wrong test when he required the wife to prove marital reconciliation on the judge’s own qualitative assessment and that it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to rescind the decree.

Peter Burgess, partner at Burgess Mee Family Law, representing Cazalet, said: ‘In place of the trial judge’s review of arcane law and qualitative assessment of the marriage, the Court of Appeal has substituted one simple test that requires the court to evaluate a change in circumstance to see whether a decree nisi should be set aside.’

Issue: 8042 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll