![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Met v Hat [2013] EWHC 4247 (Fam) (16 December 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/4247.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 4247 (Fam) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
This judgment was handed down in private on 16 December 2013.
It consists of 28 paragraphs and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge gives leave for it to be reported in this anonymised form as "
Met
v
Hat
[
2013]
EWHC
4247
(
Fam)
(16 Dec 13)".
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by his or her true name or actual location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family
must be strictly preserved.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
FAMILY
DIVISION
![]() |
B e f o r e :
____________________
![]() | Applicant | |
- and - | ||
![]() | Respondent |
____________________
Vardags)
appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. N. CUSWORTH QC and MR. J. WARSAW (instructed by The International Family
Law Group LLP), of Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT (APPROVED - ANONYMISED)
Crown Copyright ©
MR. JUSTICE MOSTYN:
"(i) each party to the marriage was domiciled in ...[ the husband's home country ]...; or
(ii) either party to the marriage was domiciled in ...[ the husband's home country]... and the other party was domiciled in a country under whose law the divorce ... is recognised asvalid;
and
(c) neither party to the marriage was habitually resident in the United Kingdom throughout the period of one year immediately preceding ...[29th March 2012].
As to that latter specification, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the wife to have fallen foul of it, in view
of the fact that, according to Mr. Yates' chronology, the wife moved permanently to live here on 22nd April 2011. So recognition here would depend on it being shown that both parties were domiciled in the husband's home country in March 2012; alternatively, that the husband was domiciled there and the wife was domiciled in ZX, Mr. Edge having stated in a further opinion, that this bare talaq would be recognised in ZX. On the present state of the evidence it does seem to me that there is a strong case indeed for this non-proceedings divorce being entitled to recognition here.
Child Support
LATER: