Sandholm v Sandholm
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ORMROD,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE GOFF |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J1212-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 December 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J1212-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(On Appeal from Croydon County Court)
Lord Justice Orr
Lord Justice Ormrod and
Lord Justice Goff
THE APPELLANT appeared in person.
MR. S. SLEEMAN (instructed by Messrs. Ormerod, Morris & Dumont of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal by Mr. Sandholm from the granting of a decree nisi by Her Honour Judge Graham Hall on 19th October of this year. At the same time she refused leave to the husband to file an answer out of time. This is another case where the so-called "Special Procedure" leads to difficulties of one sort or another.
This is a very sad case because Mr. and Mrs. Sandholm are people of mature years. They were married in September 1958 and have one child who is over 18. The marriage seems to have become more and more unhappy. Mr. Sandholm has told us a little of the background and it sounds as though misfortune struck them years ago; as a result the marriage has been deteriorating ever since. The wife actually left her husband in August 1978 and in the following month her solicitor wrote to say that she was intending to proceed with divorce proceedings. She did not in fact take any proceedings until August this year when, in a petition dated 6th August 1979, she alleged that the marriage had irretrievably broken down on the ground that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. She gave short particulars of her reasons for saying that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. If she had been able to establish any of those, or most of them, the court would no doubt have held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. From Mr. Sandholm's description of what has been happening between him and his wife it does not sound as though in practice there is any hope of this marriage being restored.
The petition was served on Mr. Sandholm on 23rd August 1979 with the usual accompanying form. He returned the acknowledgement of service on 27th August indicating his intention to defend the case. He did not, unfortunately, comply with the rules and instructions which appear on theform to file an answer within 29 days of receiving the petition. He did consult solicitors and they seem to have advised him in the first place mot to return the acknowledgement of service, but of course by that time he had in fact returned it. Then they advised him to apply for legal aid and, of course, that took time. Unfortunately, although Mr. Sandholm had an answer ready, his solicitors did not either tell him to file it 8 or file it themselves. On 18th September the wife's solicitors, as they were quite entitled to do in the circumstances, no answer having been filed, applied for direction for trial. They actually wrote to Mr. Sandholm on 20th September and gave him notice of the fact which put him (or should have put him) on his inquiry. They recommended in their letter very properly that he should take legal advice at that stage, but no step unfortunately was taken and on 1st October 1979 the registrar gave directions for trial.
All this is in accordance with the rules but it now takes place in an extremely telescoped manner. One has only to look at the document on page 6 of the bundle, which is the standard form now in use. On the top part of the form is the application by the petitioner for directions for trial. It is dated 18th September. On the same form the registrar gives directions for trial, which he did on 1st October 1979. The directions for trial were that the case should be entered in what is called the County Court Special Procedure List, which means that the registrar himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Roy Bonnesen v Kathleen Bernadette Bonnesen and Others
...given and those directions may be stated as follows. I am quoting from a passage from the judgment in the case of Sandholm v. Sandholm (1980) 1 F.L.R. 359 at page 360: "All this is in accordance with the rules but it now takes place in an extremely telescoped manner…Having given directions ......