The Family Court at Brighton on 24 February 2026 ruled on a husband's application to set aside a 2014 decree absolute, made after his former wife's death, finding the people named in the decree were the couple.
Key facts
- Who: Former spouses and personal representatives involved in an application to set aside a decree absolute.
- From: 24 February 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B)
Background
In Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B), HHJ Farquhar, sitting in the Family Court at Brighton, gave judgment on 24 February 2026 after a hearing on 8 and 9 October 2025.
Dr Labeja applied to set aside a decree absolute pronounced on 21 November 2014, which ended his marriage to Shatochina Labeja. He said the decree was obtained through fraud or procedural irregularity. His former wife died on 8 March 2022. Her son from a previous relationship, Edward Shatochin, is the personal representative of her estate and was the second respondent.
The couple married in Donetsk on 30 July 1982 and moved to the UK in 1991, where they were granted asylum on an indefinite basis in February 2000. A divorce petition dated 18 August 2008 was dismissed by order of 16 January 2013. A second petition, issued on 3 April 2014 and relying on five years' separation, led to a decree nisi on 8 October 2014 and then the decree absolute. It was agreed that the marriage date in the decree absolute was wrong.
The question
Did the decree relate to these two people, or did the errors and the alleged conspiracy mean it should be set aside?
The decision and reasoning
The judge was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that both petitions were issued by and on behalf of the former wife, and that the people referred to in the decree absolute were the applicant and his former wife.
The applicant said the second respondent had instructed the solicitors and that they, and the process server, were part of a conspiracy to obtain the decree. The judge found no evidence to support this and described the theory as unsupported by evidence and illogical. The second respondent said he had not instructed the solicitors who issued the 2008 petition.
The applicant accepted that his former wife had signed the application to dismiss the first petition and the statement supporting the second, so she must have known of both. The addresses on the documents were confirmed as accurate by the applicant, and there was evidence both parties were served.
On the errors, the judge held that the name given for the former wife clearly related to her, and that the applicant's name was correct. The decree gave the marriage date as 19 March 1991; the correct date was 30 July 1982, and there was no dispute about that. The applicant said the error appeared to be a translator's mistake, as the couple's son's birth certificate was issued on 19 March 1991. The judge noted there was only one marriage ceremony, on 30 July 1982.
What this means for former spouses and estates
- In this case, the court approached the question by asking whether the people named in the decree were the intended parties, and found that they were despite the errors in name and date.
- Allegations of conspiracy need evidence; here the judge found none.
- Anyone concerned about the validity of a decree should get legal advice.
Sources
- Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B), Family Court, 24 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/53