Examiners’ reports 2017

Examiners’ reports 2017

LA3014 Conflict of laws

Introduction
The most important requirement for answering examination questions in the area of
Conflict of laws, whether these are essay or problem questions, is that the
arguments put forward must be backed with authority. This means that students will
be required to memorise a considerable number of cases and, for exam purposes,
they should be able to cite the name of the case and briefly describe the facts as
well as the legal principle that the case established.
A further point to be made is that, as it is quite typical in law examination questions
that there is not usually a right or wrong answer, what matters is that candidates
demonstrate knowledge of the area of law. It should be noted that high marks will
be awarded when students cast their own critical eye in relation to the issues at
hand.
Time management is very important in exam situations, so any time spent reading
the questions and planning answers before starting will help maximise on
knowledge and understanding of the topics. Students should always remember that
even if they know less about a specific question than they would like, they are still
likely to write better answers if they adopt a more planned approach, manage their
time appropriately and avoid spending too much time on any one question.
When it comes to essay questions, what is usually required is an evaluation of the
present state of the law, which highlights any areas of ambiguity around the topic.
This enables the student to show knowledge of the law by identifying the legal
issues and policy considerations relating to the essay topic.
Essay questions will almost always require the student to analyse the factual
content, highlight any problem in the law and suggest possible reforms. The
presence of terms like ‘critically discuss’ or ‘critically evaluate’ in a question signifies
that students should adopt an analytical approach and avoid a mere description of
the situation. Whereas it is not mandatory to cast a critical eye on every provision
described, a discussion should nevertheless take place and students should not
hesitate or be afraid to offer their own opinion.
Finally, the importance of structure in an essay question should not be
underestimated. Whereas the precise structure will depend on the question, an
essay should have an introduction, main discussion and a conclusion and, if a
question is divided into two or more parts, that structure should be reflected in the
student’s answer.
Unlike essay questions, problem questions would not normally require students to
address complex theoretical issues and that could sometimes make them easier to
answer. Nevertheless, what is often observed is that, when dealing with problem
questions, students face timing issues. That takes the form of allocating excessive

1
time to minor or irrelevant issues, with the end result being that not enough time is
left to address the main issues.
The first task when dealing with a problem question is to read the question
thoroughly and ensure that particular attention is paid to the words that are used to
describe the situation.
It should always be borne in mind that what examiners are looking for is an
understanding of the law and an ability to apply it to the particular facts given. An
important point to make here is that, whereas problem questions are not usually
seeking a critical analysis of the law, it is always useful for students to provide their
own view of the situation, particularly when the area of law under consideration is
problematic.
In terms of structure, introduction and conclusion are less important for problem
questions than for essay questions. An introduction can simply take the form of
highlighting the issues raised by the question or, when students are asked to
‘advise’ a person, what kind of outcome that person will be looking for. A conclusion
is not always necessary but may nevertheless be useful for the purposes of
summarising what has been said.
As far as the main part of the answer is concerned, it may be appropriate to deal
with the problem chronologically, or it may be suitable to group particular issues
together. In any case, the order is of no significance as long as the proper
discussion takes place.
Sometimes a problem question can appear daunting because of the number of
issues that need to be addressed in the time available. It is a crucial step in an
examination situation to formulate a complete answer in that respect and a
suggestion to achieve this is to draw a diagram or chart, which sets out the problem
and the issues. This will help to distinguish the most important issues from the less
significant ones and may even lead to some of the issues initially identified not
being included in the final answer. A well-planned answer should ensure that only
considerations of major importance for the issue at hand are taken into account.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1
Mr Taylor was a national of Utopia who was domiciled in Ruritania. He died
intestate recently in England, leaving behind a house in Utopia and shares in
companies in England. He had three children (a son aged 13 and twin
daughters aged 17). His wife predeceased him five years ago.
Under the law of Utopia, the deceased’s estate devolves to a surviving son.
Under the law of Ruritania, a child under 16 cannot inherit and the other two
children would take jointly. By English law all children are entitled to share
the estate equally. Under the law of Ruritania, intestate succession to
property is governed by the deceased’s lex patriae. Under the law of Utopia, it
is governed by the lex domicilii.
Advise the administrator of the estate on the distribution of Mr Taylor’s
assets.
General remarks
This is a problem question on ‘intestate succession’ where the deceased’s estate is
spread across three different legal jurisdictions with different succession laws, with
the deceased also having interests in England. Candidates are to apply the

2
 Examiners’ reports 2017

principles of English private international law to advise the administrator of the

estate in the distribution of the deceased’s assets. This is a good opportunity to
discuss how the application of different succession laws (lex patriae and lex
domicilii) will present different outcomes on the succession to the deceased’s
estate.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Morris (1969), Re Collins (1986), Re Miller (1914), Studd v Cook (1883), Re
Caithness (1891), Re Michallef’s Estate (1977).
Common errors
Failure to properly discuss the principles of English private international law involved.
No clear understanding or confusion in relation to the difference between lex patriae
and lex domicilii. Limited use of relevant case law or reference to cases that are
irrelevant.
A good answer to this question would…
demonstrate a clear understanding of ‘interstate succession’ and engage in a
critical discussion in relation to the application of lex patriae and lex domicilii on the
issue at hand. Quote an adequate number of cases decided by English courts.
Poor answers to this question…
would be descriptive with limited critical analysis of the issue at hand with little or no
reference to the relevant case law.
Question 2
‘The notion of habitual residence appears to be emerging as a concept
acceptable to lawyers from both common law and civil law traditions, as
representing a compromise between domicile and nationality, or at least as a
more acceptable connecting factor than domicile to be used as an alternative
to nationality.’
Discuss the development of ‘habitual residence’ as a connecting factor in the
conflict of laws in England.
General remarks
In private international law, it is vital that there are certain connecting factors
between the parties or case in question and the foreign law and/or jurisdiction. At
common law, the main connecting factor is the domicile of the relevant party.
However, in civil law systems, the relevant connecting factor is nationality. This
means that the most ‘proper’ or ‘applicable’ law in matters relating to a citizen’s
personal relationships shall be the law of the citizen’s nationality. Nationality has the
advantage of certainty over the concept of domicile; it is also usually far more
straightforward. Students should first describe the emergence of ‘habitual
residence’ as a new connecting factor, not only in commercial situations, but also in
personal law. Reference should be made to The Hague Conference on Private
International Law, at which ‘habitual residence’ was adopted as a compromise
between the use of domicile and the use of nationality as a connecting factor. The
answer should then define ‘habitual residence’. The application of the definition
should be further illustrated by referring to relevant cases. A good answer should
highlight how ‘habitual residence’ can be acquired and lost and also how the rules
apply to both adults and children.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Re Fuld’s Estate No 3 (1968), IRC v Bullock (1976), R v Barnett LBC ex p Shah
(1983), Re A (1996), V v B (1991), Re J (1990) and Re F (1992).

3
Common errors
Failure to consider the Hague Conference on Private International Law and
insufficient consideration of the development of habitual residence as a connecting
factor. Simply describing the concept without critical analysis. Inadequate use of
relevant authority, in the form of not naming cases but referring to them as ‘a
decided case’.
A good answer to this question would…
be concise but logical and to the point. It would demonstrate an understanding of
the rationale behind the emergence of habitual residence as an important
connecting factor and would make proper use of the relevant case law.
Poor answers to this question…
would be descriptive with limited critical analysis of the issue at hand. There would
be lack of focus and limited reference to case law.
Question 3
‘A stay will only be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens where the
court is satisfied that there is some other available forum, having jurisdiction,
which is the appropriate forum for trial of the action, i.e. in which the case
may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of
justice.’
Discuss.
General remarks
A good opportunity to discuss the powers of the English court in granting stay on
the ground of forum non conveniens, where the court is satisfied that there is some
other available forum, having jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for trial of
the action.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Spiliada (1987), The Abidin Daver (1984), Mohammed v Bank of Kuwait (1996), Askin
v Absa Bank (1999), Connelly v RTZ Corp, Rockware Glass Ltd v MacShannon
(1978), European Asian Bank AG v Punjab and Sind Bank (1982), Lubbe v Cape
(2000).
Common errors
Limited or no reference to the relevant case law. Insufficient analysis of the reasons
that led to the adoption of the doctrine as well as the two-stage test applied in order
to determine whether the English court or the alternative forum is appropriate.
A good answer to this question would…
initially enter into a discussion of how, as a result of cases decided in the 1970s and
1980s, the House of Lords moved from the position that a stay would be granted only
if the English proceedings were vexatious or oppressive to the modern position that
a stay should be granted if a forum is available that is more appropriate than the
English court. In that respect, it would refer to the seminal Spiliada case and the
speech of Lord Goff. It would then describe the two-stage test that an English court
would employ in order to determine whether, in the event that the defendant satisfies
the court that there is another available forum having competent jurisdiction, the
appropriate forum is the English court or the alternative one. Additional marks are
awarded when the answer includes references to the effects of a dispute resolution
clause.
Poor answers to this question…
would fail to understand the importance of Spiliada in the development of the doctrine
of forum non-convenience. Additionally, they would simply refer to the two-stage test

4
 Examiners’ reports 2017

without providing details of the relevant connecting factors that the judge must
consider during the first stage in order to decide whether the English court or the
foreign one is the appropriate forum. They would also fail to understand that the
second stage of the test is only considered if the court, having regard to the relevant
connecting factors at the first stage, thinks that the dispute is more closely connected
with a foreign court.
Question 4
Discuss the following scenarios with reference to the applicable laws and
enforceability:
a) By a contract made in London, X & Co, a French firm carrying on
business in England, agrees to sell to Y & Co, another firm carrying
on business in England, a quantity of dates to be shipped by
instalments from a port in Turkey, payment to be made in England.
An insurrection breaks out in Turkey and X & Co refuses to deliver
the dates. By French law, it is excused from performance of the
contract by force majeure; by English law, it is liable for breach of
contract. The governing law is English law.
b) By a contract expressly governed by English law, A, who carries on
business in England, agrees to sell to B, who carries on business in
Switzerland, a quantity of jute bags c.i.f. Genoa. Both parties know
that India is the only possible source of supply and that Y intends to
resell the bags to South Africa. They also know it is illegal under
Indian law to ship jute from India if the ultimate destination is South
Africa. Will an English court enforce this contract?
General remarks
This is a problem question with two scenarios, each focusing on different aspects of
the conflict of laws, viz., ‘applicable laws’ and enforceability of the contract, and how
public policy could come in the way of enforcing a contract, if it is against public
policy/illegal.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Vervaeke v Smith (1983), Oppenheimer v Cattermole (1976), Williams & Humbert Ltd
v W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd (1986), Re Bonacina (1912), Somersett’s (1771),
Gray v Formosa (1963), Kuwait Airlines Corporation v Iraq Airways Co (Nos 4 & 5)
(2002), The Rome Convention, The Rome I Regulation.
Common errors
Inadequate reliance on case law in the form of simply mentioning the name of some
of the cases with limited or no discussion of the facts of the case and the decision of
the court. Failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the extent of the impact
of the ground of public policy on the law governing a contract.
A good answer to this question would…
provide an account of the development of the concept of public policy by referring to
the relevant case law. It would offer a critical analysis of the position of the courts
and possibly also put forward the view of the candidate. It would finally recognise
that, in the commercial sphere, it is very unusual for the law governing a contract to
be disapplied on the ground of public policy.
Poor answers to this question…
would refer to decided cases without a constructive discourse about the rationale
behind the decisions of the courts. They would generally fail to identify the impact of

5
the doctrine of public policy on commercial transactions. They would recite all
knowledge about the area without focusing on the issue at hand.
Student extract
In determining the applicable laws in relation to the dispute between X & Co,
a French firm and Y & Co, it has to be first determined whether the dispute
happened before 17 December 2009 or after. If it is before that date, then the
dispute will be governed by the Rome Convention but for the purposes of this
discourse we will first assume that the dispute happened after 17 December
2009, hence it will be governed by Rome I Regulation on the law applicable
to contractual obligations as per Article 28.
Their contractual dispute falls squarely within Article 1 of Rome I Regulation
as it concerns a contractual obligation on civil and commercial matter. The
commercial dispute will be governed by the Regulation irrespective of
whether it is the law of a Member State, as Article 2 enshrined the principle of
unilateral application of the said Regulation to all Member States and as both
X & Co and Y & Co are from a Member State of the European Union, this
Regulation will bind them.
Usually, the applicable law can be determined if X & Co and Y & Co had
expressly stipulated the choice of law within the contractual agreement
(Article 3(1) Rome I), but as the facts seemingly suggest that there is no
express stipulation of choice of law of any kind inside that contract made in
London, it could be said that there is no express choice of law made.
Nonetheless, given that it as [sic] not specifically mentioned in the contract,
on balance of reasons, it can be argued that there might be implied choice of
applicable law, which can be imputed from the circumstances.
Comments on extract
This is a typical example of an answer where the student clearly has a grasp on the
legal issues relating to the scenario and deals with the different issues in a
satisfactory manner but could perhaps have done a better job in terms of
presentation and structure. The answer begins with the factually correct statement
that, as a result of the time that the contract was concluded, the applicable law is
the Rome I Regulation. The first paragraph includes a reference to the Rome
Convention, which was the instrument that would have applied had the contract
been concluded in 2008. The inclusion of this reference sets the appropriate tone
for the remainder of the answer and demonstrates the student’s familiarity with the
relevant legal framework. The student then engages with the substance of the
question by identifying Article 3 of the Regulation as the potentially applicable
provision, as it would appear that, even if the parties have not made an express
choice of law in their contract, such a choice could be implied from the
circumstances. One remark that could be made here is that, whereas the student is
not necessarily wrong in that assertion, this would have been a better answer if the
position was less rigid and considered at this early point the application of Article 4
as well (the possibility that the parties have failed to make an express choice of law)
and if it made reference to the relevant case law.
Question 5
‘The English courts have continued to decide cases in accordance with the
former traditions of the common law and in defiance of the required spirit of
uniform application of the Rome Convention.’
In the light of the above statement, give a critical account of the approach of
the English courts to the interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of the Rome
Convention.

6
 Examiners’ reports 2017

General remarks
The students are expected to have a good understanding of the Rome Convention,
and when it may apply. The question requires the student to discuss the instances
where the English courts have proceeded to apply traditional common law rules in
defiance of the required EC legal instrument. Students are expected to be familiar
with the provisions of the Rome Convention as incorporated into English law by the
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. There should also be some discussion of the
scope of Articles 3 and 4 of the Rome Convention.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co (1984), Articles 3 and 4 of the
Rome Convention.
Common errors
Inadequate reliance on case law in the form of simply mentioning the name of some
of the cases with limited or no discussion of the facts of the case and the decision of
the court. Failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of how Articles 3 and 4 of the
Rome Convention operate.
A good answer to this question would…
demonstrate a good understanding of the Rome Convention and in particular
Articles 3 and 4. There would be a constructive discussion of the issue at hand and
an attempt to identify the rationale behind the thinking of the English judges. A
reference to Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co (1984), a case
that pre-dated the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, would be particularly
welcome.
Poor answers to this question…
would not critically discuss the relevant articles. They would recite all knowledge
about the articles without applying them properly to the issues at hand. Inadequate
reference to the appropriate authority. Failure to identify the rationale behind the
thinking of the English courts.
Question 6
‘An anti-suit injunction does not purport to halt foreign proceedings, but only
prevents an individual within the jurisdiction of the English courts from
pursuing such proceedings. In some ways it goes to preserve the jurisdiction
of the courts of the Member States.’
Discuss the development of the grant of anti-suit injunctions noting any
recent development in the EU law on the subject, and how the CJEU has
come to view the same.
General remarks
Candidates are expected to be familiar with anti-suit injunctions, which are granted
by the English court to halt foreign court/arbitral proceedings and how such an
injunction only prevents an individual within the jurisdiction of the English courts
from pursuing such proceedings. Students are expected to be familiar with the
Recast Brussels Regulation 2012, which came into force in January 2015; the
judgment of the CJEU in Gazprom OAO v Republic of Lithuania; the position of law
with regard to the grant of anti-suit injunctions under the Brussels I Regulation; and
the earlier decisions of the CJEU in West Tankers, etc.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Gazprom OAO v Republic of Lithuania (2015), Allianz SpA and Generali
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc (2009).

7
Common errors
Failure to use authority in answers or simply referring to the authority with limited or
no discussion of the impact of the decision of the court on the issue under
examination.
A good answer to this question would…
initially recognise that an anti-suit injunction is a controversial measure because of
its extraterritorial dimension. It would show an understanding that, where jurisdiction
is conferred by Brussels I Regulation, the English courts have taken the (widely
criticised) view that a claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant
from pursuing proceedings in another Member State: a) when the foreign
proceedings are in breach of an English jurisdictional clause; or b) where the claimant
is already a litigant in England and the foreign proceedings are brought in order to
oppress/harass him/her. It would also demonstrate an understanding of the
importance of the decisions in West Tankers and Gazprom.
Poor answers to this question…
would fail to demonstrate an understanding of the nature and purpose of anti-suit
injunctions for litigants. They would also fail to recognise and refer to the relevant
case law in the area. They would generally be descriptive with limited or no critical
discussion.
Student extract
The English courts have the inherent jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions
preventing an individual from pursuing a claim in the foreign courts. This
practice was justified by asserting that the injunction was addressed not to
the foreign court but to the individual but technically it does have the effect of
staying proceedings in the foreign court.
The court has a discretion, which should be exercised only if the
circumstances so warrant i.e. it is vexatious or oppressive to allow the
claimant to pursue the claim in the foreign court (Aerospatiale case).
Secondly, an injunction would be granted if it was proved that the foreign
proceedings had been brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or
an arbitration agreement.
In the case of non-exclusive clauses an injunction would be granted only if it
could be proved that the claim had a closest connection with England where
it could be tried more suitably in the interests of both the parties and the ends
of justice (Shashoua v Sharma). Even then it would be granted only if there
were countervailing factors to do so.
In the case of arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses the
courts’ practice was reflected in the Angelic Grace where it was said that the
breach of an agreement warranted an injunction and it did not halt the
proceedings of the Member States, because the injunction was to the
individual preventing him to pursue the claim, rather t[h]an to the member
state court.
Comments on extract
The student begins by making a direct statement in response to the issue at hand.
This can be a good approach to dealing with an essay question as long as the
student’s view is supported by adequate evidence. In this case, a (somehow
indirect) definition of an anti-suit injunction is initially provided. Reference to relevant
case law is then made, which is an indication that the student does indeed possess
a good understanding of the concept. It could be argued that, from a structural point
of view, the response would be more sound if the supporting arguments were
preceded by a reference in the introductory statement to the fact that the inherent

8
 Examiners’ reports 2017

extraterritorial dimension of the anti-suit injunction contributed to the latter’s

controversial nature. The response would also benefit from a reference to the fact
that the position adopted by English courts in relation to anti-suit injunctions is
widely criticised. Nonetheless, whereas, these opening paragraphs perhaps offer
room for improvement there is a good deal to credit as it is clear that the student
has a good grasp of what an anti-suit injunction is and is familiar with the
circumstances surrounding its application.
Question 7
Alfred is a UK national who normally lives in England and teaches at a
London University. In September 2013 he takes research leave and moves to
the Netherlands. In December 2013 he travels to Paris to give a lecture. While
there, he is knocked down by a van driven by another UK national, Ben, who
runs a business as a sole trader taking English produce to Paris and selling it
in markets. Alfred returns to England where he incurs significant medical
expenses and commences proceedings against Ben in the English courts.
The damages payable would be significantly greater under English law than
under French law.
Determine the law that the English courts will apply. How, if at all, would your
answer differ if the accident occurred in 2008?
General remarks
The scenario presented here is similar to Boys v Chaplin but is set in Paris, France
in 2013, by which time the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1995 had come into force. Prior to the enactment of Pt III of the Private International
Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the position of a claimant in a dispute
involving a wrongful act committed abroad but tried and determined in England was
particularly difficult. Also of relevance will be the judgment in Hardings v Wealands
(2007) where the claimant had an accident in Australia but was successful in
pursuing the compensation claim before the English courts resulting in 30 per cent
more than he would have got if the matter had been decided according to New
South Wales legislation.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Boys v Chaplin (1971), Edmund v Simmonds (2001), Hardings v Wealands (2007),
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, Rome II Regulation.
Common errors
Failure to make reference to the relevant case law. Failure to identify the relevance
of the Rome II Regulation in the scenario. Limited or no reference to the Private
International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.
A good answer to this question would….
set the scene by engaging into a brief discussion of the development of the choice
of law in tort in English conflict of laws, noting that until the 1990s it was regulated
by the common law. It would refer and comment on the ‘double actionability’ rule
and the eventual introduction of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1995 (which was derived from the common law rules). It would then
refer to and highlight the scope and importance of the introduction of the Rome II
Regulation and its application to events giving rise to damage after 11 January
2009. Reference would also be made to the relevant case law (in particular Boys v
Chaplin). It would conclude by recognising that the position of the claimant in the
scenario would be different if the events had taken place in 2008 [as at that time the
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995) would apply].

9
Poor answers to this question…
would be descriptive with a distinct absence of a critical approach in relation to the
issue at hand. Such answers would normally be devoid of a discussion about the
impetus behind the developments that led to the eventual introduction of the Rome
II Regulation. They would also make limited or no reference to Boys v Chaplin or
the other landmark cases in the area.
Question 8
Discuss:
a) The circumstances under which an English court may recognise a
talaq;
b) The problems that a ‘transnational’ divorce may cause; and
c) The circumstances under which a foreign divorce and a foreign
annulment are likely to be considered contrary to public policy by
an English court.
General remarks
This is problem question with three scenarios, which presents an interesting
tapestry to analyse. As in the case of intestate succession, with the estate spread
across jurisdictions, matrimony and the dissolution of marriage with ‘transnational’
elements brings with it a number of legal issues. This is a good opportunity to
discuss how the common law pragmatic approach may be applied to the above
three scenarios, in the absence of EU law.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
D v D (1994), Re Meyer (1971), Messina v Smith (1971), Torok v Torok (1973), Quazi
v Quazi (1980), Chaudhary v Chaudhary (1985), El Fadl v El Fadl (2000), R v
Secretary of State, ex p Fatima (1986), Sabbagh v Sabbagh (1985), Newmarch v
Newmarch (1978), Mamdani v Mamdani (1984), Kendall v Kendall (1977), Eroglu v
Eroglu (1994).
Common errors
Limited or no reference to the appropriate authority. Taking a descriptive approach
without elements of critical discussion. Confusion about the applicable law, in the
form of not recognising that the Family Law Act 1986 is the appropriate instrument.
A good answer to this question would…
identify the Family Law Act 1986 as the instrument governing the recognition of
divorces from non-EU Member States and identify in that respect the difference
between judicial divorces and extra-judicial divorces (such as the talaq). It would then
acknowledge that the rules applicable for the recognition of extra-judicial divorces
depend on whether the divorce was obtained by means of ‘proceedings’ or not and
then discuss both situations. The same approach (distinguishing between a divorce
obtained by means of ‘proceedings’ and one obtained otherwise) would be employed
to deal with the problems that may be caused by transnational divorces. In terms of
the third part of the question, mention would be made to s.51(3)(c) of the Family Law
Act 1986 and the relevant case law such as Kendall v Kendall and Eroglu v Eroglu
where recognition of a divorce was refused because it offended public policy in the
form of fraud (if one party deceived the other and the foreign court) or Re Meyer
because the institution of proceedings was the result of duress.
Poor answers to this question…
would fail to identify the Family Law Act 1986 as the relevant authority. There would
be confusion in terms of the difference between judicial and extra-judicial divorces
and divorces obtained by means of ‘proceedings and those obtained otherwise’.

10
 Examiners’ reports 2017

There would be no reference to the relevant case law or the cases would only be
mentioned by name without any critical discussion about their impact on the issues
at hand.

11