QR v ST (Divorce: Retrospective extension of time for Answer, Forum, and ASI)

A retrospective extension of time for filing an answer in divorce proceedings is an application for relief from sanctions. The court must apply the three-stage Denton approach, together with the matters specified in FPR r 4.6. A serious and significant delay, an unsatisfactory explanation, prejudice to the other party and the administration of justice, and a weak proposed answer may justify refusal.

An anti-suit injunction may restrain foreign proceedings that directly and oppressively obstruct divorce proceedings in England and Wales where the English court has jurisdiction, a sufficient connection, and the balance of justice supports relief. Such relief remains exceptional because of international comity. A mandatory anti-anti-suit injunction requires particular caution and may be refused where an invitation to discharge the foreign injunction is presently sufficient.

The parties, both habitually resident in England and Wales, married in India and have three children who live in England. The husband issued divorce proceedings in England. The wife initially acknowledged service, stated that she would not dispute the divorce and accepted English jurisdiction, but later filed an out-of-time answer contending that India was the more appropriate forum. Her Indian proceedings sought restitution of conjugal rights rather than divorce.

The husband sought to resist a retrospective extension of time, obtain an anti-suit injunction restraining the Indian proceedings, and obtain an anti-anti-suit injunction in response to an injunction made by the Indian court restraining him from pursuing the English divorce. The central issues were whether relief from the late filing should be granted, whether the Indian proceedings should be restrained, and whether the foreign injunction should be countermanded.

1. Late answer. The wife’s answer was nearly five months late. The mandatory time limit in FPR r 7.7(5) meant that her application was properly treated as an application for relief from sanctions under FPR r 4.6. Applying the three stages in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the delay was serious and significant, the explanation was unsupported and unreasonable, and the court had to assess all the circumstances.
2. The relevant circumstances included the wife’s earlier acknowledgment that she would not dispute the divorce and accepted English jurisdiction, the resulting delay and prejudice to the husband, the impact on the administration of justice, and the merits of the proposed answer. The forum argument was extremely weak. The stronger connections were with England: the parties had lived there for about twenty years, their home and children were there, and the English divorce was already well advanced. The extension was refused.
3. Anti-suit injunction. The power under s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was governed by the principles identified in E v E (ASI:children) [2021] EWHC 956 (Fam): jurisdiction over the respondent, a sufficient English connection, an appropriate ground such as unconscionable conduct, and discretion. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including comity, the nature of both proceedings, the parties’ connections and the balance of prejudice.
4. The wife’s Indian restitution proceedings were designed to prevent or delay the husband’s English no-fault divorce. In the circumstances, pursuing them was oppressive and vexatious. England had substantially closer connections, and the fundamental difference between the two legal systems did not prevent relief. The case was exceptional. The wife was restrained from taking further steps in India or making further applications purporting to affect the parties’ matrimonial status or the husband’s ability to seek orders in England, until the final divorce order.
5. Anti-anti-suit injunction. A mandatory injunction requiring the wife to discharge the Indian injunction required greater caution and engaged comity more strongly, consistent with Ecom Agroindustrial Corp v Mosharaf Composite Textile Mill [2013] EHC 1276. The court declined to make an anti-anti-suit injunction at that stage, invited the wife to procure the foreign injunction’s discharge, and gave the husband permission to renew the application if confirmation was not provided by 30 September 2026.