Dependants who have not been adequately provided for in a deceased person's will may be able to make a claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 . Recently, the High Court considered such a claim by...
Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B)
A reported Judgment where T G Baynes acted for the First and Second Respondent, clarifies the Court’s powers to amend historic divorce Decrees.
His Honour Judge Farquhar has handed down a rare and important judgment in Charles Labeja v The Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor addressing the Court’s power to amend a Decree Absolute many years after it was granted.
This case clarifies how the Family Courts will deal with historic divorce Decrees involving errors of identity, dates and service. An area where reported decisions are extremely limited.
Factual Background
- The Applicant, Dr Charles Labeja, and the First Respondent, Raisa Dmitrievna (Shatochina) Labeja, married in 1982 and lived in the UK for decades.
- Two divorce petitions were issued:
- 2008 petition on grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
- 2014 petition on five years’ separation, which led to the Decree Absolute on 21 November 2014.
- The Applicant claimed he had never been served, had no knowledge of either divorce petition, and that the Decree Absolute was obtained by fraud.
- The First Respondent died in 2022. Her son, Edward Shatochin, acted as Personal Representative and was the Second Respondent.
The Applicant argued that:
- The name and marriage date on the Decree Absolute were wrong.
- The First Respondent never initiated divorce proceedings.
- The Second Respondent orchestrated a conspiracy to deprive him of inheritance rights.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether the Applicant had been served with the divorce proceedings
The Court found substantial evidence of service:
- A certificate of service from a process server in 2014.
- Multiple Court documents showing HMCTS notation confirming service on both parties in 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
The Judge concluded the Applicant’s denials were not truthful and that he knew about both petitions.
2. Whether the First Respondent initiated the proceedings
The Court found:
- Her signature was on documents in both the 2008 and 2014 proceedings.
- There was no evidence of any conspiracy.
- The Applicant’s theory was illogical and unsupported.
The Court held the divorce petitions were genuinely issued on her instructions.
3. Errors in the Decree Absolute (name and marriage date)
The Decree Absolute incorrectly recorded:
- The First Respondent’s surname as “Shatochina Raisa Labeja”.
- The marriage date as 19 March 1991 instead of 30 July 1982.
The Judge found these were clerical or translation errors, not grounds to invalidate the Decree.
4. Power to amend the Decree Absolute
Relying on FPR 4.1(6) and the authority in X v Y (2020), the Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to correct errors in names and marriage dates in historic Decrees.
The Court therefore ordered that the Decree Absolute be amended but remain valid.
5. Alleged five‑year separation
The Applicant said they never separated; the Court found:
- Evidence of marital difficulties existed since 2008.
- Whether they were truly separated was irrelevant after 10 years: challenges must be raised at the time, not a decade later.
6. Finality and “Judgments in rem”
The Court emphasised:
- A Decree Absolute is a change of status binding on the world.
- It cannot be reopened absent serious procedural irregularity — none existed here.
Outcome of the Substantive Judgment
The Court held:
- The Decree Absolute was validly obtained.
- The Applicant had been properly served.
- No fraud or procedural irregularity was established.
- The errors in identity and marriage date were correctable, not grounds to void the Decree.
- The application to set aside was dismissed.
Amendments ordered:
The Decree Absolute must be amended to reflect:
- The correct names of the parties.
- The correct marriage date: 30 July 1982.
Costs Judgment
The Court made strong findings:
- The Applicant had been dishonest and pursued allegations without evidence.
- The Respondent’s conduct was reasonable; the Applicant’s was not.
Costs Order:
- Costs assessed on the indemnity basis.
- Total assessed: £45,000 including VAT.
- Applicant to pay 75% (£33,750) within 21 days.
Importance of the Case
This case is now reported and provides rare guidance on:
- The Court’s power to correct historic divorce Decrees.
- The very high bar for setting aside a Decree Absolute many years later.
- The weight placed on process server evidence, court file notations, and procedural finality.
- The principle that a Decree Absolute is a judgment in rem, rarely disturbed.
It is a significant decision with practical implications for future applications involving correction of long‑standing family law Orders.
The link to the Judgment is here.
Matrimonial enquiries: Karen Ioannou, kareni@tgbaynes.com
Contentious Probate and litigation enquiries: Teresa Johnston, teresaj@tgbaynes.com
Probate enquiries: Kully Shokar, kullys@tgbaynes.com