Key Facts
- •Husband (RN) petitioned for divorce in 2012 citing wife's (DA) unreasonable behavior; decree nisi granted.
- •Parties' relationship continued with periods of closeness and separation; neither sought decree absolute.
- •Husband became wealthy after 2013; husband sought decree absolute in 2023; wife opposed and sought rescission of decree nisi.
- •Wife argued reconciliation; husband maintained separation; significant dispute over date of separation due to husband's wealth.
- •Wife cross-petitioned for divorce in 2023.
Legal Principles
Court's discretion to make decree absolute or rescind decree nisi.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, sections 9(1)(a) to (d), 9(2)
Requirements for application for decree absolute after 12 months, including explanation for delay and whether parties lived together.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 7.32(3)
Definition of 'living together' as living in the same household and sharing a common life.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 2(6)
Wide but not unbounded power to rescind decree nisi; traditional grounds for review include material change of circumstances.
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, section 31F(6); Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 4.1(6); Sharland v Sharland [2015] 2 FLR 1367; NP v TP [2022] EWFC 78; Cazalet v Abu-Zalaf [2023] EWCA Civ 1065
Test for rescission based on reconciliation: Is the evaluative exercise carried out upon granting the decree nisi still valid in light of subsequent events?
Cazalet v Abu-Zalaf [2023] EWCA Civ 1065
Court's power to strike out a statement of case if an abuse of process; limited applicability to decree nisi and applications for decree absolute.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 4.4(1)(b); Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14
Outcomes
Decree nisi rescinded.
Material change of circumstances invalidated the basis of the decree nisi due to reconciliation and subsequent shared life. Delay in applying for decree absolute and lack of final financial settlement also weighed against granting decree absolute.
Wife awarded costs, except those related to unsuccessful strike-out application.
Wife substantially successful; husband's evidence unreliable and misleading; husband's settlement offer not in line with outcome.
Further interim payment of £60,000 ordered to the wife.
Husband has means to pay; conservative approach taken due to potential proportionality arguments at detailed assessment.
Interest on wife's litigation loan not recoverable as costs.
No procedural rule or case authority supports recoverability; further information needed on funding options and reasonableness of interest rate.