W v W (Decree absolute)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1998 |
| Date | 20 February 1998 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mrs Justice Bracewell
Matrimonial law - divorce proceedings - postponement of decree absolute- risk of prejudice to one party
Where there was a real risk of prejudice to one party in divorce proceedings, the court had power to refuse to allow an application for the grant of a decree absolute unless and until the other party had complied with any orders for ancillary relief.
Mrs Justice Bracewell so held in the Family Division in a reserved judgment, handed down in chambers but reported with leave on condition that the parties were not identified, when allowing an appeal by the plaintiff wife from the order of District Judge White in the Principal Divorce Registry on September 12, 1997 whereby he granted leave to the respondent husband to apply for a decree absolute under section 9(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and rule 2.49(2) of the Family Proceedings Rules (SI 1991 No 1247 (L20)) on the ground that there was a real risk of prejudice to the wife's position.
Shortly before the present hearing, it emerged that the husband he had flown by Concorde to New York where he had purported to obtain a religious divorce in order to remarry there.
Because the wife had refused to accept the get, or divorce declaration, the second marriage could only be achieved by means of a heter meah rabbonim, a dispensation signed by 100 rabbis and normally only used where the wife was incapable of agreeing to divorce due to mental illness or was regarded as being unreasonable in refusing the get.
Mr Jeremy Posnansky, QC and Mr Edward Cross for the wife; Mr Augustus Ullstein, QC, for the husband.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL said that the foreign national parties, who had married abroad in 1974, had lived in England for most of the marriage. In 1996 they separated and the husband left the country, retaining no home, and very few assets, within the jurisdiction.
The wife began divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom in order to prevent the husband starting them elsewhere. A decree nisi was pronounced in September 1996 and ancillary proceedings were commenced under the pilot scheme at the principal registry in February 1997.
In April 1997 the wife was awarded maintenance pending suit. That had been paid to date but the capital position and the husband's account of his financial position continued to be obscure.
At the hearing before Judge White the husband gave various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N v N (Jurisdiction: Pre Nuptial Agreement) sub nom N v N (Divorce: Ante-Nuptial Agreement)
...[1983] 2 WLR 173, HL. S v S (matrimonial proceedings: appropriate forum) [1997] 3 FCR 272, [1997] 1 WLR 1200. W v W (decree absolute) [1998] 2 FCR 304. Originating summonsBy a summons dated 25 March 1999 the wife sought specific performance of an ante-nuptial agreement entered into with her......
-
S v S (Rescission of Decree Nisi: Pension Sharing Provision)
...v Sherdley[1987] 1 FCR 149, [1988] AC 213, [1987] 2 All ER 54, [1987] 2 WLR 1071. Walker v Walker [1987] 1 FLR 31, CA. Wickler v Wickler[1998] 2 FCR 304, [1998] 2 FLR ApplicationFollowing the enactment of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, the petitioner wife, applied to the court to......
-
H v H
...spouse is a good ground for delaying the making absolute of a decree nisi. In Wickler v Wickler [1998] 2 FLR 326 (or W v W, [1998] 2 FCR 304; [1998] 3 All ER 111), the wife obtained a decree nisi against the husband in 1996 and then immediately began her ancillary application. Both parties ......