Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
On 8 th March 2021, the Court sat to hear argument relating to directions that should be given for the determination of the ancillary matters in the above captioned proceedings and also for an application by the Petitioner that he be given leave to apply for the Decree Absolute. This judgment deals with this latter aspect.
I do not need to set out the procedural history in great detail but there appears to have been a dispute as to who would continue as petitioner and on what basis but it was eventually decided that the Petitioner would petition on the grounds of two-years separation. This was recorded in an Act of this Court on 28 th November 2019 ("the Act of Court") which also, at paragraph 6, contained the following:
"The parties each undertake not [to] apply for Decree Absolute until the final determination of their respective ancillary relief claims, without the consent of the other parties or leave of the Court."
Decree Nisi of the divorce was pronounced on 9 th December 2020, and the Petitioner has asked for the leave of the Respondent to apply for the Decree Absolute. As at 3 rd March 2021, the Respondent had not given that consent nor, so it appears to me, fully articulated reasons for refusal. Hence the Petitioner's current application before this Court.
It appears to be common ground that were it not for the undertaking provided in the Act of Court, the Petitioner would have been entitled to apply for the Decree Absolute at any time from 22 nd January 2021.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.