Family Law Hub

Service

Latest updates

  • The husband applied for various orders relating to a divorce to be set aside, including the decree absolute. He challenged the deemed service of the divorce petition. The wife had been granted the divorce in England and then remarried, while the husband had later petitioned for divorce in Scotland. If the earlier divorce was set aside, the husband would retain a right of residence due to the marriage exceeding three years in length. Lieven J DBE held that to the extent that there had been any procedural errors in this case, they did not render the subsequent orders void, and to the extent that they rendered them voidable she declined to exercise her discretion to set them aside. Judgment, 23/10/2019, free
  • After considering issues in relation to service, an order was made for the child to return to the UK from Spain in the short term so that CAFCASS could make an assessment which would inform the court before a final decision on where the child should live could be made. Judgment, 03/05/2018, free
  • Final orders in financial remedy proceedings where the assets were worth £40m, the wife had special medical needs as a result of a brain tumour and the German husband was absent from the final stages of these proceedings. Cobb J also considers, among other things, arguments on inherited wealth, whether the Duxbury or Ogden tables are appropriate to cater for the wife's needs and whether the husband had been served properly. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Husband's appeal against dismissal of his application to set aside financial remedy orders since 2010, partly on the grounds that orders for service by email were null and void. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/10/2017, free
  • The husband was applying to have child maintenance orders set aside on the basis that orders which were served on him by email were null and void and must be set aside because there was no power to serve a person out of the jurisdiction by email where he was present in Turkey. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 14/01/2016, free

Latest know-how

Latest sources

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item