Radseresht v Radseresht-Spain

Recognition of an overseas divorce may be refused where the spouse received neither reasonable notice of the proceedings nor a reasonable opportunity to participate. A possible financial remedy under separate proceedings does not remove the court’s statutory duty to apply those safeguards. The court must consider the statutory criteria directly.

Under UAE personal status law, revocation of a revocable divorce may be established by conduct showing an intention to continue or resume the marital relationship. Recording the revocation is evidential rather than necessarily constitutive, and notice of revocation cannot logically be required where the spouse was unaware of the divorce.

The husband sought recognition in England and Wales of a divorce granted in Dubai on 24 September 2009, a declaration of status, and consequential relief. The wife opposed recognition, contending that she had received no proper notice of the Dubai proceedings and had been unable to participate. The husband relied on a signed power of attorney, a settlement agreement, and the possibility of a financial application under Part III of the 1984 Act. The court also considered whether the divorce, if effective, had subsequently been revoked under UAE law.

1. Recognition refused. The Dubai divorce was not recognised under Family Law Act 1986, s 51(a)(i) and (ii). The wife had received no proper notice of the proceedings and had no reasonable opportunity to participate. The power of attorney was in Arabic, had not been explained to her, and the attorney never communicated with her. The settlement agreement’s reference to an earlier talaq did not identify the petition, court hearings or proceedings and did not amount to proper notice.
2. The court rejected the submission that recognition should nevertheless be granted because the wife could pursue financial relief under Part III of the 1984 Act. Such relief might not be equivalent to relief following a financial remedy application under the Matrimonial Causes Act. In any event, the possibility of another remedy did not discharge the court’s duty to apply the statutory criteria. The reliance on Lachaux v Lachaux and Duhur-Johnson was therefore not accepted.
3. The court additionally considered revocation under UAE law. Article 109 of the UAE Law of Personal Status permits revocation by writing or by conduct with intent, and requires recording and notification during the waiting period. The court accepted that recording was evidential rather than a mandatory condition, and that notification could not sensibly be required where the wife was unaware of the divorce.
4. The parties’ conduct during the relevant ninety-day period showed an intention to continue or resume the marital relationship. They lived together for substantial periods, continued to present themselves publicly as husband and wife, and shared a bed on at least some occasions. The court was satisfied that the divorce had been revoked, although those findings were not necessary to the refusal of recognition.
5. The late challenge to the Dubai court’s jurisdiction was rejected because the evidence was insufficient and the court had been satisfied that it possessed jurisdiction.