R v O [2005] JRC 021 (28 February 2005)

R v O [2005] JRC 021 (28 February 2005)

The application for decree absolute is refused due to the real risk that, once divorced, the husband will not be compelled to complete the sale of the Dubai property and fulfill the ancillary relief obligations, given the lack of enforceable undertakings and the absence of sufficient pressure to ensure compliance.

Citation
[2005] JRC 021
Parties
Respondent: Respondent/Husband; Petitioner: Petitioner/Wife
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Application for Decree Absolute
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Divorce, Decree Absolute, Ancillary Relief, Enforcement of Orders, Consent Orders
Family Law Divorce Decree Absolute Ancillary Relief Enforcement of Orders Consent 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Respondent/Husband

Respondent

Petitioner/Wife

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Application for Decree Absolute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent/husband is entitled to a decree absolute after settlement of ancillary matters
  2. 2 Whether the risk of non-compliance with ancillary relief justifies refusal of decree absolute
  3. 3 Whether foreign property undertakings are enforceable by Jersey Court

Ratio Decidendi

The application for decree absolute is refused due to the real risk that, once divorced, the husband will not be compelled to complete the sale of the Dubai property and fulfill the ancillary relief obligations, given the lack of enforceable undertakings and the absence of sufficient pressure to ensure compliance.

Court Disposition

application refused