Correspondence
| Published date | 01 November 1972 |
| Date | 01 November 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb01348.x |
Nov.
19.72
REVIEWS
679
The focus moves to less familiar ground in the discussion of legal aid and
security bonds. This
is
perhaps the most valuable contribution throughout in
that it provides useful information not readily available elsewhere. And the
comparison between the Common and civil law procedural systems
is
worth
attention in view of the pending entry of the United Kingdom into the
Common Market. The ever-topical chestnut of nationalisation receives
a
balanced, if rather bland analysis, and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments are usefully illustrated. The hidden barriers,
e.g.
exchange control
regulations, in particular are brought out to advantage.
Sadly the conclusions do not add to what has already been said in the book.
Moreover, the primary conclusion seems to be that overall the world situation
Uir4-vis
national tribunals and aliens is not
as
bad
as
might be supposed. This
is hardly likely to arouse lawyers and legislators to correct any of the defects
in their respective countries.
Much of the factual mass could well have been left out, in which case the
book would have been
a
useful handbook to the practitioner on the look out for
difficulties in the course of his work.
T.
RIDLEY.
CORRESPONDElNCE
THE
EDITOR,
The
Modern
Lam
Review.
Dear Sir,
Maintenance Granted
by
the English Court
after a Divorce Abroad
In
your
May issue Mr.
I.
G.
F.
Karsten in
an
article on the Recognition of
Divorces and Legal Separations Act
1971
writes
:
“The urgent need now-and it is extremely urgent, since the Act is
already in force-is to give the courts
of
Great Britain the power to
award maintenance after
a
foreign divorce.”
Unlike everything else in this article, which is admirable,
I
venture to question
this proposal, not only because of the formidable objections to its operation
in practice but also because its undermines
a
valuable principle.
This principle is that the court of the country granting
a
divorce is the
right one to deal also with all questions of financial provision between the
spouses which arise out of the divorce.
It
is clearly convenient that
a
court
which is seised
of
the matrimonial history should decide
all
questions relating
to the dissolution
of
the marriage, preferably in
a
single proceeding. Spouses
should not be exposed to
a
plurality of actions in different countries and,
possibly, to conflicting orders.
It
is wrong that
a
spouse should be able to
indulge in tactical
“
forum-shopping
”
in order to find the court likely to be
most generous in the circumstances
of
the case; and there is also the danger
that the choice
of
a
court other than the court of the divorce may lead to
the application of an inappropriate system of law unconnected with the
marriage.
It
is presumably not proposed that
a
wife who has initiated divorce pro-
ceedings in
a
foreign court should, although obtaining her decree abroad, be
able to obtain maintenance in England. The suggestion,
as
I
understand it, is
that only
a
wife who is divorced abroad should be enabled to apply here for
maintenance, and
I
further assume that it
is
not proposed to give our courts
jurisdiction in cases where their orders are likely to be flouted.
Presumably, therefore, the only class of rewondent who should be made
amenable is one who has assets within the jurisdiction
or,
possibly, is a person
To continue reading
Request your trial