The rules regarding service of matrimonial applications are contained in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 6 and the supporting practice directions in particular FPR 2010, PD 6B. The US is a signatory to the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the service abroad of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (Hague Service Convention). The period for filing an acknowledgment

Further/second petition Further/second petitions are dealt with in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 7.7, which provides that a person may not make more than one application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order in respect of the same marriage unless: • the first application has been dismissed or finally determined, or • the court gives permission Save for one instance, this would mean that a petitioner cannot simply file a further/second petition; either leave would be required to do so or the first petition would first have to be dismissed. The exception is if the petition had not been served, as it could simply be withdrawn (under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.9) and no question of permission

The procedure for making an application for a decree nisi is set out in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 7. Where the case is proceeding undefended, the petitioner (applicant) can apply to the court for it to consider the making of a decree: • at any time after the time for filing the acknowledgment of service has expired, provided that no party has filed an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to defend the case, and • in any other case, at any time after the time for filing an answer to every application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order made in the proceedings has expired If at the time that the court is considering the application for decree nisi the case is undefended and, if satisfied

If the petitioner is dragging their heels in proceeding with their divorce petition once it has been issued, there are a number of steps that can be taken by the respondent in an attempt to speed the process up. The respondent can seek to issue their own petition. Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) states that, provided one year has passed since the date of the marriage, a petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. If the respondent chooses to file their own petition within the same proceedings, the Family

For the purposes of this Q&A, the original petitioner who applied for a divorce 13 years ago shall be referred to as the ‘applicant’, and the respondent to that original petition for divorce as the ‘respondent.’ Procedure for divorce and other matrimonial causes is covered by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 7. If the original application for a divorce has not been dismissed or finally determined by the court, the applicant would technically need to obtain the court’s permission for a second application since that original petition still remains ‘live’ despite the lapse in time, albeit the court is unlikely to have easy access to the records of that original petition. The fresh application would be made within existing proceedings. The parties could, in the alternative,

Alterations of, or additions to, a petition may be made by amendment and a petition may be amended by adding an additional or substituted prayer, for instance, to make stronger allegations of behaviour so as to convince a court to grant a decree. The rules regarding amending petitions are set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 7 and the supporting practice direction FPR 2010, PD 7A. FPR 2010, PD 7A, para 1.3 states that ‘amended and supplemental applications operate on a principle of relation back to the date of issue of the original application’. For that reason, if a separation petition is presented within one year of the marriage or civil partnership, it cannot be amended to a divorce

This Q & A considers whether a deposit held on behalf of two sellers can be used as an onward deposit for a purchase by one of them. Please note that there is no direct authority or Law Society guidance on this point, however we have set out below the relevant terms of the Standard Conditions of Sale (5th Edition) (SC) and how these are applied in practice. SC 2.2.5 provides that: ‘If before completion date the seller agrees to buy another property in England and Wales for his residence, he may use all or any part of the deposit as a deposit in that transaction to be held on terms to the same effect

This question envisages a written agreement, which contains, in a schedule, the form of a further agreement, which the parties may sign on some future occasion. When that occasion arises, the parties simply sign the schedule, rather than printing out a new document in the form of the schedule and then signing it. This question is whether that will constitute a binding contract when executed in such circumstances. The general principle at common law is that a contract can be made quite informally and no writing or other form is necessary. This basic rule is subject to statute, which may require a particular form of contract, eg in writing and/or other formalities. The most obvious examples are contracts for the sale of land (section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) and guarantees (section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677)).  If there are statutory

Common interest privilege allows a client party (say, party A) voluntarily to disclose privileged material to a third party (party X). Common interest privilege may arise in respect of communications between parties sharing the same interest, even in circumstances where there is no joint privilege. The same interest may be in the subject matter of the privileged communication, or in litigation to which the document is connected, and in respect of which the document was created (Buttes Gas v Hammer, Commercial Union Assurance Co plc v Mander BLD 2640980132 [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 640 (not reported by LexisNexis®)). It operates to ensure that, where the client party has voluntarily disclosed an otherwise privileged document to a third party, provided a common interest exists between the client party and

If an instrument expressed to be a ‘charge’ over registered land is not completed by registration as a legal charge, it ‘does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements are met’ (see section 27(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002)). Consequently, it operates only in equity. Under LRA 2002, s 29,

This response considers the causes of action available where a dog harms another dog, and specifically whether a claim can be made under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) or for negligence. AA 1971 makes a keeper of an animal strictly liable for the damage that animal causes. Because it is strict liability, a claimant does not need to prove fault. Consequently, unlike a claim in negligence, a keeper of an animal can be held liable under AA 1971 even though they did nothing wrong or could not have prevented their animal causing damage. In the case of ‘non-dangerous animals’, such as a non-dangerous breed of dog, a claimant has to prove each part of the three-stage test in AA 1971, s 2(2) in order to succeed against the keeper

The Q&A contemplates the dominant tenement (DT) having to pay for its use of the easement which is a positive covenant. The easement in question allows the DT to connect ‘drains water and gas pipes electricity wires and cables’ to ‘Public Services’. The easement appears subject to the proviso that the DT owner pays a rateable proportion of the expense of keeping the said drains sewers and pipes in repair. While this is an express provision regarding the use of the easement, it