MD v ED

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Mangatal, J.)
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2016
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 15 March 2016

Grand Court, Family Division

(Mangatal, J.)

MD

and

ED

S. Thompson for the petitioner;

S. Brooks for the respondent.

Cases cited:

(1) B v. B, [1937] P. 1; [1936] 2 All E.R. 1254, considered.

(2) CMS v. RGS, Grand Ct., August 10th, 2015, unreported, considered.

(3) Grenfell v. Grenfell, [1978] Fam. 128; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 738; [1978] 1 All E.R. 561, referred to.

(4) Nevill v. Nevill, [1959] 1 W.L.R. 320; [1959] 1 All E.R. 619, referred to.

(5) Thompson v. Thompson, [1957] P. 19; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 138; [1957] 1 All E.R. 161, referred to.

Legislation construed:

Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.10(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 10.

s.17: “Where either party to a suit for dissolution of marriage alleges that the other party has, since the celebration of the marriage, committed adultery, the person with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed shall be joined in the suit by the party making such allegation and shall be cited as a co-respondent . . .”

Family Law—divorce—grounds for divorce—petition to set out grounds for divorce as provided in Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.10(1)—petition struck out for failure to plead proper grounds

The petitioner petitioned for divorce from the respondent.

The petitioner pleaded that her marriage to the respondent had broken down by reason of the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour which included an extra-marital affair. Particulars of the alleged unreasonable behaviour were set out. She further pleaded that she believed the marriage to have broken down irretrievably and that she no longer wished to be married to the respondent.

The respondent applied to strike out the petition on the basis that the petitioner had not set out the grounds for a divorce as provided for in s.10(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision). He submitted that the petition therefore disclosed no reasonable course of action and/or was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore, he submitted that the allegation of adultery had not been properly pleaded and the petitioner had failed to name a co-respondent, as required by s.17 of the Law.

Held, striking out the petition:

A divorce petition was required to set out the grounds on which divorce was sought, as provided in s.10(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision). Divorce petitions were subject to the same general rules of pleadings. The petitioner had failed to plead proper grounds. The grounds in the Law that...