Collins v Collins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J0314-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 March 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J0314-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: His Honour Judge Ifor Lloyd — London
Lord Justice Davies and
Sir Gordon Willmer
Mr. JOHIJ HAMILTON (Instructed by lasers. Maxwell Batley & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Wife, Respondent).
Mr. RICHARD CARR (instructed by Messrs. Howard, Kennedy & Rossi) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Husband, Petitioner).
LORD JUSTICE DAVIS: This is a wife's appeal from an order made by His Honour Judge Ifor Lloyd on the 11th February last whereby he refused her application for leave to file an Answer out of time, The parties wore married on the 16th December, 1956, and they have had two children, now; aged approximately 12 and 9. At the time when the marriage effectively came to an end, the parties were living in Australia, In March, 1963 the husband left Australia and cone back to this country; the wife and children remained in Australia. We know nothing whatsoever of the circumstances in which the parting took place. We do not know whether the husband deserted the wife or whether the wife deserted the husband, or whether it was a consensual separation. On the 22nd April of last year the husband filed a petition for divorce, bringing the case under section 2 (1) (e) of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, namely, that the parties had lived apart for five years.
Very considerable negotiations took place between the parties, and I will refer in a moment to one or two of the letters that have been put before us with record to property, periodical payments, and go on. There is no doubt from the letters that these people did come to an agreement, the agreement being that the husband should transfer what had been the matrimonial home in Australia to the wife and that he should also transfer to her a piece of land, which I suppose is building land, the latter being in consideration of her giving up any claim for periodical payments for herself. After those negotiations had come to a head the wife, very late of course, signed the acknowledgment of service and uas not going to defend the proceedings in view; of the arrangements that had been come to. The case was in the list to be heard on the 11th February, 1972. But on the 3rd February 1972, the husband went back on his agreement and said that he was not going on with it. Consequently, the wife wished to defend the proceedings. She would have made her answer had shebeen allowed to fill it, under section 2 (1) (c) of the Divorce Reform Act, namely, two years' desertion.
I turn now to refer to three or four of the letters which passed between the parties. On the 5th October of last year the husband's solicitors wrote to the wife's solicitors in these tares, after dealing with maintenance for the children: "Our client confirms that he is prepared to transfer the former- matrimonial homo into your client's name, but we should make it clear that your client must accept responsibility for mortgage repayments as from the date of transfer. In this connection, we wonder whether there might be some difficulty with the mortgagees who may be reluctant to release cur client from his guarantee".
On the 13th December the wife's solicitors wrote: We hava now rocaived further instructions from our client's solicitors in Briobane and we have been instructed that our client will accept a transfer of the Buderira land" — that is the piece of land to which I have referred — "in full satisfaction of her claim for maintenance. We shall bo glad, therefore, if we may now have the approp— riato documents duly signed, which we undertake to keep pending deorce absolute". Then custody is mentioned.
On the 4th January, 1972, the husband's solicitors wrote this: "In view of the fact that the form of transfer of the Buderim land refers to an Order of the Divorce Court, our client is unable tosign it before a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v Rogers
...few words on one aspect of the case. 11 We were in the course of the argument very properly referred to the decision of this Court in Collins v. Collins. It so happens that on that occasion this Court was constituted in the same way asthe Court to-day, and the appeal was from the same learn......
-
Spill v Spill
...this charge of cruelty because cruelty carries a certain stigma. That word came from some observations of mine in a fairly recent case, Collins v. Collins, decided on the 14th March, which was not concerned with cruelty but with adultery, I said that there is in these days still a stigma at......
-
M v M
...matters at the ancillary relief hearing (B (E.M.) v. B (J.), 1994–95 CILR 332, dicta of Harre, C.J. applied; Collins v. Collins, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 689, dicta of Davies, L.J. applied). The court would therefore dismiss the husband”s application. ...
-
Frazer v Frazer
...his application for leave to file answer late. Miss Pot cited two cases as authorities for her submission namely; Collins v. Collins [1972] 2 All E.R. 658 and Spill v. Spill [1972] 3 All E.R. 9. 4 The reason the applicant changed his mind about not defending is, that he discovered that the......