Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor

Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor

The Applicant was properly served with the divorce petitions and had notice of the proceedings. The errors in the names and marriage date on the Decree Absolute do not invalidate it; the court has jurisdiction to amend the decree to reflect the correct details. There was no fraud or procedural irregularity. The application to set aside the Decree Absolute, brought over ten years after pronouncement, is dismissed. The Decree Absolute remains valid, subject to amendment to correct the parties' names and marriage date.

Parties
Applicant: Charles Labeja; First Respondent: The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja; Second Respondent: Edward Alexandrovich Shatochin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Family (divorce) / Application to Set Aside Decree Absolute
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Decree Absolute, Fraud, Procedural Irregularity, Rectification of Decree
Family Law Divorce Decree Absolute Fraud Procedural Irregularity Rectification of Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Labeja

Applicant

The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja

First Respondent

Edward Alexandrovich Shatochin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family (divorce) / Application to Set Aside Decree Absolute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Decree Absolute was obtained by fraud or procedural irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the Decree Absolute relates to the Applicant and First Respondent and is valid
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to amend the Decree Absolute to correct names and marriage date

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was properly served with the divorce petitions and had notice of the proceedings. The errors in the names and marriage date on the Decree Absolute do not invalidate it; the court has jurisdiction to amend the decree to reflect the correct details. There was no fraud or procedural irregularity. The application to set aside the Decree Absolute, brought over ten years after pronouncement, is dismissed. The Decree Absolute remains valid, subject to amendment to correct the parties' names and marriage date.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Decree Absolute remains as granted, subject to amendment to show the correct names and marriage date of the parties.
  • Applicant to pay £33,750 towards the costs of the Respondents.