The husband obtained a divorce in China before decree nisi was granted on the wife’s divorce application in England, creating a significant impact on the financial remedy proceedings in England which the husband did not engage in.
In winning the ‘race for decree’ over the wife, the result of the husband’s Chinese divorce was that the final order of Deputy District Judge Michael Horton QC (as he then was) at the final hearing in the financial remedy proceedings remained in draft.
The draft final order was subject to the pending decree nisi, after which it could then be drawn up and become enforceable. The wife therefore made an application under MFPA 1984, Pt III and was successful.
In his judgment, DDJ Michael Horton QC re-instated the award and orders he had originally provided for the wife in the earlier financial remedy proceedings. The judge also addressed the wider issues in his judgment.
He made suggestions for improvements while condemning the court delays and administrative issues which led to the elapse of more than one year between the wife’s application for decree nisi, and pronouncement of the same, and the impact it had on the outcome of the financial remedy proceedings. Caroline Korah, partner at Vardags, and Jemima Kearney, solicitor at Vardags consider the issues in The significance of conditional orders in cross-border divorce and financial remedy proceedings (AW v AH).
