FRB v DCA

FRB v DCA

The claim in deceit cannot survive because the statutory scheme for financial remedies under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is comprehensive and displaces common law remedies in this context. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and is an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: FRB; Defendant: DCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
claim struck out
Legal Topics
Deceit, Paternity Fraud, Financial Remedies, Abuse of Process, Costs
Family Law Tort Law Deceit Paternity Fraud Financial Remedies Abuse of Process Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FRB

Claimant

DCA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the tort of deceit in respect of intimate matters (paternity fraud) exist between husband and wife?
  2. 2 Can such a claim run in parallel with financial remedy proceedings or is it an abuse of process?

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in deceit cannot survive because the statutory scheme for financial remedies under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is comprehensive and displaces common law remedies in this context. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and is an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim in deceit struck out under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and (b) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process.
  • Husband to pay 80% of wife's costs of the action including the strike-out.