Md Petitioner v Ed Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: The Hon Justice Martgatal
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2017
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2016] CIGC J0315-2
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO: FAM 0006 OF 2015
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 07 March 2017

Between:

MD

Petitioner

and

ED

Respondent

[2016] CIGC J0315-2

Before:

The Hon. Justice Ingrid Mangatal

CAUSE NO: FAM 0006 OF 2015

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FAMILY DIVISION

Appearances:

Mrs. Stacy Thompson for the Petitioner

Ms. Sheridan Brooks for the Respondent

IN CHAMBERS

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. This matter first came before me as a contested divorce on 19^th November 2015. At that time I indicated that I would deal with the strike out points referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Respondent's Answer and Cross-Petition as preliminary points.

2. I commenced by hearing the legal points and adjourned part-heard for counsel to provide written submissions and provide copies of relevant authorities.

3. The Hearing commenced after the Court's encouragement of the parties to see if it could be sorted out in an amicable way proved futile.

4. Today is therefore the continuation of the Part-heard Hearing. The Application by the Respondent is to Strike Out the Petition on the basis that it does not set out the grounds for a Divorce as provided for in S.10(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Law and as such, it discloses no reasonable course of action and/or is deemed scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

5. Ms. Brooks on behalf of the Respondent, further alleges that paragraphs 8(ii) and 8(vi) of the purported Petition allege adultery, but this ground is not pleaded in the Petition and nor is a Co-Respondent named as is required by S.17 Matrimonial Causes Law.

6. In my judgment, a Divorce Petition must set out the grounds and must be those provided for in Paragraph 10 of the Matrimonial Causes Law. Divorce Petitions are subject to the same general rules of pleadings, see for example Thompson v Thompson1957 page 19, referred to in the decision of Williams J in CMS v. RGS FAM 177 of 2013, unreported decision, delivered 10 August 2015, to which reference is made by Ms. Brooks on behalf of the Respondent.

7. In the Thompson decision see in particular, the headnote and pages 27, 33 and 34. See also B v B&G 1937 P 1 1937 P 1, page 5 and Neville v Neville [1959] 1 Weekly Reports page 330. These latter two cases were decisions to which the Court referred Counsel and useful comment by Counsel was made in relation thereto.

8. In the instant case, what the Petitioner has pleaded at Paragraph 8 of the Petition, is as follows: “that the marriage has broken down by reason of the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour which includes an extra-marital affair” and particulars of unreasonable behaviour are set out. And in paragraph 8(viii) “By reason of the facts set out in paragraphs (i) to (vii) above, the Petitioner is convinced that themarriage has broken down irretrievably and no longer wishes to be married to the Respondent”.

9. None of...