Mr and Mrs Agbaje were married for 38 years. Both Nigerian by birth, they had met in England in the 1960s and acquired UK citizenship in 1972. All five of their children were born (and all but one educated) in England, and in 1975 Mr Agbaje bought a property in England called “Lytton Road” in which their children stayed with a nanny. But for the majority of their married life Mr and Mrs Agbaje lived in Nigeria. They separated in 1999, at which point Mrs Agbaje came to live in Lytt ...
|
The court allowed an appeal against a CSA liability order holding that a consent order stating that maintenance payments would be reduced by the amount of any CSA assessment and which provided for larger initial payments was intended to address arrears which had built up.
|
Initially an appeal against the judgment that H could successfully challenge an application under s.27 (failure to maintain) on the grounds of sovereign immunity. However the death of H made the real issue for the appeal court became whether an application for relief under s.27 survived the death of a party. It was held that on a true construction of s.27 MCA 1973 it did not.
|
CA upheld Singer J’s judgment on 5 April 2005 - see [2005] EWHC 528 (Fam) in which he made an award of £4.5 million in a short childless marriage where the parties were still young and the husband’s wealth was over £30 million pounds.
|
A defendant to possession proceedings who had come to England after a Nikah ceremony in Pakistan and lived in a property owned by the claimant but used by his first wife failed to establish the factual basis for proprietory estoppel or deceit.
|
Maintenance pending suit could be awarded where the jurisdiction of the court was in issue and were the case related to substantial sums of money. The maintenance pending suit could at the court’s discretion include an element for the petitioners’ legal advisors to pay the costs of the proceedings.
|
HL decided that a person illegally present in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 could still be habitually resident within the jurisdiction for the purposes of s 5 (2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and have a domicile of choice there, and consequently the English Courts could entertain her divorce petition.
|
| 1 |