Darnton v Darnton & Anor

Darnton v Darnton & Anor

The application for permission to appeal was refused because all grounds advanced by Mr Darnton were either res judicata, totally without merit, or bound by previous decisions. The court found that the judge had discharged his duty under section 1(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that Mr Darnton had consented to the decrees, and that there was no infringement of human rights or appearance of bias. The order for costs on the indemnity basis was justified as the proceedings were an abuse of process.

Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Darnton; First Respondent: Mokshadayini Darnton; Second Respondent: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Divorce, Validity of Marriage, Setting Aside Consent Orders, Costs, Civil Restraint Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Validity of Marriage Setting Aside Consent Orders Costs Civil Restraint Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Darnton

Applicant

Mokshadayini Darnton

First Respondent

HM Attorney General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decrees nisi of divorce should be rescinded or set aside due to alleged invalidity of marriage
  2. 2 Whether the court failed in its duty under section 1(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to enquire into the validity of the marriage
  3. 3 Whether lack of marriage certificate precluded grant of divorce

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because all grounds advanced by Mr Darnton were either res judicata, totally without merit, or bound by previous decisions. The court found that the judge had discharged his duty under section 1(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that Mr Darnton had consented to the decrees, and that there was no infringement of human rights or appearance of bias. The order for costs on the indemnity basis was justified as the proceedings were an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused in both applications (B4/2006/1165 and B4/2006/1166).
  • No order on extension of time.