to validate a clause which the Court would not
under the existing law of Territory relating 5
to divorce have been empowered to validate.
As the If the husband was at the time
of
Late
dresses which the EJ purported to
validate
dom domiciled in the Colony then the Divorce Ordinance of 1932 would have applied, on the other hand
if
he was not domiciled in the Colony the
petitioner could have obtained redressing, under
the Divorce and Colonial and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance No 1926
applied to the Colony by the Royal Toys Divorce Jurisdiction Act (1955) provided
(1) the parties were
British subjects domiciled in England or Ireland;
(2) the petitioner at the time of presenting the petition resided in the Hong Kong;
(3) the marriage
was solemnized in the Colony or the grounds
for divorce
It does not lay any
CO-ord-
given the Colony.
certified
followed by the Petitioner
the above enactments through all of the
conditions of or
other
of the
granted
at all
did not are we to refuse the Certificate without
regard to law or by guesswork??
MARRIAGES.
15/4/47
1.
2.
There is I think, no serious problem.
With reference to paragraph 3 of (1) on this file, it was not intended to suggest that the marriages should be made subject to a provisional Order, only that the Ordinance should follow the form of the provisional order in not scheduling the marriages affected. The disadvantage of validating only the marriages of persons whose names are scheduled, is that some marriages might be overlooked.
3. Nor was it intended to suggest that the parties should be given
the option of affirming or repudiating the marriage, but merely that they should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision was finally reached as to the course to be adopted. I had not, however, appreciated that there were so many marriages affected (557), and it does appear that it would be impracticable to consult all the parties. In those circumstances, however, I think it will be
/preferable
to validate a cleance which the Count would not
under the excoating law of Temmytaus ratating 5
to hiponce have been empowered to waste.
As the If the husband was at the time
of
Late
desses which the EJ purported to
wate
dom ceibed in the Colony then the Dworse bedinance of 1932 would have afflied, on the other hand
q
be was not counciled in the Colong the
fotitioner could have totten brossading, under
this Luction & Colonial & worse windeation Got 1926
applied to the tolong by the ways toys Dwores Jurnal Cum (1955- Drovided
(1) the Lantea's were
mitive subjects donmailed in England or feellend;
(2) the batitimer at the time of presenting the be totion resided in the Hong,
was solemnered in the Colony of the grounds
(3) the marriage
for divorce
It does not lay ang
COORD-
given the Colony.
enterfied
follow Beat the Natitioner
the above enactments through of abe
the conditions of ou
other
of the
granted
atall
did not are we to reffone the C-7 dance without
regard to law or by guesswork??
MARRIAGES.
15/4/47
1.
Z.
There is I think, no serious problem.
With reference to paragraph 3 of (1) on this file, it was not intended to suggest that the marriages should be made subject to a provisional Ordere rely that the Ordinance should follow the form of the provisional order in not scheduling the marriages affected. disadvantage of validating only the marriages of persons whose names are scheduled, is that some marriages might be overlooked.
3. Nor was it intended to suggest that the parties should be given
the option of affirming or reprobating the marriage, but merely that they should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision was finally reached as to the course to be adopted. I had not, however, appreciated that there were so many marriages affected (557), and it does appear that it would be impracticable to consult all the parties. In those circumstances, however, I think it will be
/preferable
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.