Wedding ringsThe Channel Islands may be separated from the UK mainland by miles of water, but they are not overseas countries. In an unusual case, that simple fact was enough to

defeat a woman’s claim for a pension-sharing order following her divorce in Jersey.

After a long marriage, the woman’s husband left the matrimonial home in England and moved with his new partner to Jersey, where he swiftly launched divorce proceedings. The woman believed that he had done so because Jersey does not have provision within its family law for the making of pension-sharing orders. The husband’s pension was 2.5 times greater than the wife’s total income.

Following negotiations, what was essentially a clean-break settlement was agreed in Jersey whereby the wife received 55 per cent of the former matrimonial home and the husband 45 per cent. She was, however, most unhappy with the deal and shortly afterwards launched proceedings in London under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, seeking a pension-sharing order.

In ruling on the matter, the High Court noted that, where a marriage is dissolved or annulled by proceedings in an overseas country, the Act permits English family judges to provide financial relief to parties to the marriage who are habitually resident or otherwise sufficiently connected to England and Wales.

The woman’s claim, however, faced the difficulty that Jersey – together with the other Channel Islands, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man – has been defined by law since the Victorian era as part of the ‘British Islands’. Jersey is thus not an overseas country to which the Act can be applied.

The woman’s lawyers argued that she had suffered a serious injustice due to the unavailability of pension-sharing orders in Jersey. It was submitted that the Act should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid such an absurd outcome. The Court, however, found that the interpretation contended for would ride roughshod over the unambiguous wording of the Act. It was for Parliament, and Parliament alone, to decide whether the provisions of the Act required amendment. The wife’s application was struck out on the basis that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Latest News

High Court Favours Finality in Enforcing $145.7 Million Arbitration Award

Commercial arbitrators’ awards are meant to be final, rather than merely the opening salvo in full-blown litigation. A High Court ruling on a big money dispute concerning a Ukrainian gas field


Read More...

Property Owner Pays High Price for ‘Cavalier' Attitude to Planning Laws

Complying with planning laws can be expensive and inconvenient, but failing to do so is likely to result in a criminal record and a severe financial penalty. In a case


Read More...

IT Company Scores Important Victory in Business Rates Test Case

It is for local authorities to ensure that non-domestic rating lists are accurate and up to date and businesses are under no obligation to point out errors. The High Court


Read More...

National Minimum Wage Test Case Focuses on Football Club Season Tickets

The purpose of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) is to ensure that workers receive decent pay packets, into their own hands and free from deductions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) underlined


Read More...

Bank Fends Off Liability for Medical Examiner’s Alleged Sexual Assaults

The distinction between employees and independent contractors is replete with grey areas but could hardly be more important. The Supreme Court gave authoritative guidance on the issue in ruling on the


Read More...

Brothers Battle It Out in Court After Their Mother Fails to Make a Will

Failing to make a professionally drafted will is a positive invitation to family strife after you are gone. In one case, a spectacular falling out between two brothers could have


Read More...

Pensioner Hit By Car Near His Home Wins More Than £700,000 Damages

Road accidents ruin lives, but specialist lawyers are thankfully there to ensure that innocent victims receive just compensation. In one case, a 72-year-old man who was struck by a car


Read More...

Channel Islands Are Not ‘Overseas Countries’ – Guideline Divorce Ruling

The Channel Islands may be separated from the UK mainland by miles of water, but they are not overseas countries. In an unusual case, that simple fact was enough to


Read More...

Can an Employee’s Formal Resignation Be Impliedly Withdrawn?

Can an employee’s formal resignation be impliedly withdrawn by conduct, or can that only be achieved by explicit agreement? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) tackled that thorny issue in a case


Read More...

Tribunal Exposes Shocking Tale of Botched Office Block to Flats Conversion

Changes in the planning regime designed to accommodate burgeoning demand for new homes have led to the conversion of many office buildings into flats. As one case shockingly revealed, however, some


Read More...

Contact Us

DMD Solicitors

3 Exeter House
Beaufort Court
Sir Thomas Longley Road
Rochester
Kent
ME2 4FE
Tel: 44 (0) 1634 735530
Fax: 44 (0) 1634 735532
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

If you have a legal question please send an e-mail to us for an initial response.

 

Contact Us

 

 

Our Clients Feedback

I have recommended DMD to both friends and relatives as the fees were competitive and the time charged was reasonable and in particular for Lindseys direct approach to issue. Ms M


Read More...

The whole service given was with understanding and helpfulness by all the staff and nothing was too much trouble in helping us.


Read More...

What could we do to improve the service you received from us? Could not - it was great Mr H


Read More...

Both my son and I have been very happy with the attention received and would not hesitate to recommend you to friends. BH


Read More...

The service was very good and fast and the staff very kind. It was value for money and I am very happy with the service because my son had a case with someone else and it took longer than me, so thank you very much. Mr and Mrs K


Read More...

Our case was dealt with in an efficient and pleasant manner. It needed clear legal advice to resolve so it was worth the cost. We were pleased with the service especially with the time that was taken to ensure we understood all of the aspects of the Power of Attorney...


Read More...

What could we do to improve the service you received form us? Nothing we were very pleased with the service. MD


Read More...

Service was excellent Mrs JH


Read More...

I was given an excellent service, giving good clear advice and was able to satisfy my request with a quick turnaround. I will certainly be recommending you to my friends and colleagues. Ms JA


Read More...

Thank you for all your help and for making things easier for me at a difficult time, and a thank you to all your friendly, cheerful staff.


Read More...

Communication and assistance have always been great from DMD and will recommend DMD to anyone I know. I understood the procedures all the way through the service. Everything on the conveyance was completed in a timely manner and to a high standard. I could never fault or ask for more...


Read More...

I came to you with a sensitive problem and the matter was treated with upmost sensitivity. You could not improve your services as from receptionist to solicitor the service was 100 percent. T A FIlippi


Read More...

Gave us great advice at every stage. Colin Atkins


Read More...

I felt comfortable enough to ask any questions. Informative service, would return for any other legal advice. S Mead


Read More...

Friendly and helpful staff in my time of stress made everything easy for me.


Read More...

I would recommend the practice to a colleague, friend or family member as everything happened as promised from the start.


Read More...

Very informative and helpful in dealing with our request.


Read More...

Memberships

DMD Solicitors is the trading name of Dakers Marriott Dugdale Ltd

(Co. No. 08797418) and is authorised and regulated by the SRA (No. 611613)

Copyright © 2011-2014. All Rights Reserved.

Accessibility, Legal Notices, Cookies, Privacy, Sitemap